Points of Order
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr Speaker
I was about to thank the Prime Minister and the 47 Back Benchers who questioned him, in 47 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which shows just what we can do when the questions and answers are pithy. But things would not be complete without points of order.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on the radiation leak at the Government’s Vulcan nuclear reactor test establishment at Dounreay. He said that
“there has been no measurable change in the radiation discharge.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 1085.]
We have since learned that all the environment agencies throughout the UK have found a tenfold increase in radioactive emissions. Clearly, both cannot be right. Have you had any indication, Mr Speaker, whether either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister will come forward to put the record straight? If it is the Prime Minister, may we also have an explanation as to why Scottish Ministers were not told and perhaps even an apology for that omission?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that I have had no indication from any Minister of an intention to make a statement on this matter. Whether intentions will change on the back of the hon. Gentleman’s observations, I leave time and speculation by colleagues to reveal. We will leave it there for today, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I hope you will not mind me sucking up to you for a bit. In my view, you are one of the best Speakers that we have had in recent years, because you have tried to make this place more topical. We have had an interesting statement and questions on Ukraine, but such issues are complex, and it is hard to express difficult economic and historical arguments in a 30-second question. As we have a House of Commons in which we are not overburdened with work at the moment, will you use your good offices with those who decide things—I do not know how much power you have—to get a full day’s debate on Ukraine, which after all is an extraordinarily important issue that we need to discuss urgently?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic good humour in putting it. As he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair. The Government Chief Whip is present, but at least as importantly the Leader of the House is also present.
As colleagues know and as people who attend our proceedings appreciate, I am the servant of the House. I love listening to my colleagues on matters of local, national and global importance. My appetite for listening to them is pretty much unlimited. I would love there to be a full day’s debate and I would love to be in the Chair to hear the bulk of it, but I am dependent on a superior power in these matters, namely the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman, however, has made his point, and the Leader of the House cannot fail to have heard his point and my response. As for the response of the Leader of the House, it has to be said that it should probably be best described by Hansard as impassive.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. As usual, dozens of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. However, I remind the House that there are two further ministerial statements to follow, first from the Home Secretary and then from the Secretary of State for Defence. Thereafter, there will be a statement by the Chair of the Defence Committee and two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Therefore, there is a premium on time and, exceptionally—I emphasise the word “exceptionally”—it may not be possible today to get everybody in, which, as the House knows, is my usual practice. There is an imperative, therefore, on Back and Front-Benchers alike to be brief.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
In the light of one of the statements you have mentioned, Mr Speaker, and the publication in a few minutes of the Privileges Committee report, will the Leader of the House consider a debate on a positive aspect of the relationship between UK police and MPs? I am, of course, referring to the little-known—it should be publicised—police service parliamentary scheme, which has successfully brought police and MPs together. It started in 1999 and operates under the guidance of Sir Neil Thorne. An early, short debate would be timely, because the new scheme for this year has just commenced.
Mr Lansley
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. I have not had an opportunity to look at what the FCA has had to say. He has, rightly, raised this issue before and I hope he finds today’s publication positive. We certainly want to see an improvement in the sources of funding available to small business. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills say how we want to achieve additional sources of funding for small businesses, through not only banks but a wider range of sources. Crowdfunding is for entrepreneurs. There are 400,000 more businesses than there were in 2010, many of which were set up by women. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise the issue further in this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on the contribution of women to the economy. If we can raise the rate of women entrepreneurship in this country to the level in the United States, it will dramatically increase our prospects for growth. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
It has been suggested to me that we have now had the debate. I think that is perhaps a tad unkind, but I am grateful for the advice.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
May we have a debate on credit rating companies, which can have a negative impact on some businesses because of false commentary? For example, a company called Experian claims that a company in my constituency, Fast Food Supplies (Anglia), is high risk and has a bad credit record. That is not true: the business has been operating successfully for 26 years and is expanding, moving into bigger premises and taking on more employees.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I speak as a genuine working-class Conservative. [Interruption.] My local health authority is making a real mess of the reorganisation of health provision in my constituency, so could we have a debate on health provision across South Gloucestershire, especially in relation to Frenchay hospital, my local hospital?
Mr Speaker
Hon. Members should not be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman. I have known him for more than 20 years, and I can testify, from personal knowledge, that he was a distinguished ice-cream salesman in Bristol.
Mr Lansley
Thank you for that, Mr Speaker.
I will, of course, ask my colleagues in the Department of Health to respond directly to my hon. Friend. I know from personal experience how long and difficult the issues surrounding the reconfiguration of services have been following the developments at Southmead and the reduction of services at Frenchay. He has taken a considerable interest in these issues for several years, and rightly so, and I shall encourage my colleagues to respond to him.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend tempts me. [Interruption.] Yes—a little bit. However, I will resist that temptation because we are a Government who believe in ensuring accountability and scrutiny in the Chamber. We have deliberately in this Parliament seen through reforms to the Backbench Business Committee, which has afforded time, and from now on in this Session time in this Chamber for that Committee will be in excess of its 27 allotted days. As I said earlier, the same is also true for the Opposition, which is fine and as it should be. We cannot have a sort of closed period for scrutiny and opportunities for debates generated other than from within the Government. Finally, I will take issue again with my hon. Friend. We have just seen the introduction of the 20th Government programme Bill in this Session, which, for a Session of this normal annual length, is broadly speaking what one would expect and what we have seen in previous Sessions. There is no merit in having a large number of Bills as such—perhaps the contrary—but the idea that there is a light legislative programme when we have introduced 20 programme Bills is, I am afraid, simply not true.
Mr Speaker
Order. We now come to the Back-Bench debate on the Normington report on reform of the Police Federation. Before I ask the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) to open the debate, I will mention that four hon. Members who have applied to speak are not currently present in the Chamber. Further and better particulars of those hon. Members can be provided to the Whips. It is incumbent on Members who apply to speak in a debate to be present at its start, both because it is a courtesy, and in this case because I feel sure that they would want to benefit from the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman, from which the House is about to benefit.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1041, which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members, and concerns the persecution by the branch of Asda in Longsight in my constituency?
[That this House expresses its disgust with and condemnation of the employment practices of Asda, in particular with regard to its treatment of a staff member at its branch in Longsight, Manchester; notes that this staff member was suspended for nearly two years on bogus allegations and has now, after this protracted and biased process, been unfairly dismissed; suspects that racism is involved in the persecution of this constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton; asserts that Asda has breached its own policies and procedures, confidentiality and data protection; further asserts that Asda has made false statements, has been involved in collusion over statements, has breached the ACAS code of practice, has made its decision with no valid evidence in support and has taken hearsay as being fact; and condemns these nasty bullies who believe they can get away with anything simply because they are immensely wealthy.]
A constituent of mine who was employed by Asda was suspended on bogus charges. After nearly two years he has now been dismissed, with Asda breaking every single employment rule it would be possible to break, never mind the fact that my constituent is a member of an ethnic minority. May I add to you, Mr Speaker, that when I raised this matter with Asda, it wrote to me saying that it would report me to you for raising it? I therefore report myself to you for standing up for a constituent against these wealthy and powerful bullies.
Mr Speaker
The politest thing I can say is that Asda is not thereby demonstrating a very firm grasp of the parliamentary procedures that we operate in this place.
Mr Lansley
I have seen the right hon. Gentleman’s early-day motion. I know he would not expect me to comment on the circumstances of his constituent in this case, but it is perfectly proper for him to raise the issue. Even if these are not matters for which we in Government or Parliament are directly responsible, it is our responsibility, and his, to represent our constituents. I hope that those concerned will respond, including responding positively to him.
Mr Lansley
My right hon. Friend will know that the Standing Orders Committee in this House and in the House of Lords looked at the timing on consultation. The result of that was that the time for receipt of responses to the consultation was moved to, from memory, 27 February in recognition of the fact that people should have time to look at what is clearly a great volume of information. I remind my right hon. Friend that it is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the proper assessment is made of those responses to the consultation before our Second Reading. We have not announced the timetable for Second Reading. It is in any case, as the House will understand, a decision in principle on Second Reading, and through the hybrid Bill procedure there will be detailed examination of the Bill that follows.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind the House that there is a very important statement on flooding to follow and thereafter two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, the first of which is exceptionally heavily subscribed? There is, therefore, a premium upon brevity, which I am sure will now be exemplified by Mr Sheridan.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 1046?
[That this House expresses serious concern at the anti-trade union behaviour of INEOS at its petrochemical plant in Grangemouth where it has dismissed Mark Lyon, the UK Vice-President of Unite The Union for carrying out his responsibilities as the elected convener of Unite The Union at the Grangemouth complex; notes that INEOS refuses to accept the Unite shops stewards elected by the workforce to represent them and is acting against the International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 1998, particularly ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise 1948, and ILO Convention 98 on The Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949; further notes that INEOS is acting in contravention of the rights set out by the UK Government on the gov.uk website sections on Trade union membership: your employment rights and the role of your trade union rep; is concerned that INEOS is in line to receive £9 million in grants from the Scottish Government and has applied for loan guarantee fund support from the UK Government of £150 million; calls on the Government to make it clear to INEOS that actions in breach of ILO conventions and in contradiction of UK law on the rights of employees to be represented by a trade union and to take part in trade union activities is not acceptable in the UK in the 21st century; and further calls for the reinstatement of Mark Lyon and a negotiated settlement of points of difference between INEOS and trades unionists in its employment.]
Despite the best efforts of the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the local community and the work force of INEOS at Grangemouth, senior management at the plant are behaving like industrial thugs, sacking yet again the Unite convener Mark Lyon on trumped-up charges. As we have given this company £150 million of taxpayers’ money, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to come to this House to explain why this kind of behaviour from senior management is being tolerated?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on the appeal process for employment and support allowance? It is an expensive process, and it is a nightmare to negotiate for users of the system. A dispute over the work capability assessment must first be reconsidered by the Department for Work and Pensions, which can take a month, during which ESA is suspended. Claimants are left with no support and have to claim jobseeker’s allowance. Some have been refused JSA, however, because they are not fit for work. After the DWP has gone through its assessment process, the claimant can go to a tribunal, and 40% of those claims are successful. Would it not be appropriate—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we have got the gist of the matter, which has been eloquently conveyed to the House. The hon. Lady might want an Adjournment debate on the matter; it would be good material.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. We have indeed got the gist of what she was saying, and it is important to us. It is the reason why we have taken action to ensure that the work capability assessment is fit for purpose. Our measures include: requiring Atos to retrain its staff; much closer monitoring; and bringing in new providers to carry out assessments. We have also announced that we will seek additional provision to conduct WCAs. I hope that we will continue on the programme, which has been an important and successful one, to ensure that those in receipt of benefits are subject to a proper assessment to see whether they are fit for work or eligible for ESA.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, my normal practice is to call everyone in this session to put a question. However, today we have important matters appertaining to the Immigration Bill to consider and a pretty constrained timetable in which to do so. I cannot do anything about that, but it would help if we had brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike. I warn colleagues in advance that it might not be possible to accommodate everyone at business questions on this occasion because I have to take account of the next business.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, take the opportunity to make a statement in defence and support of the Queen and the royal family, and the amazingly good value that they provide to the United Kingdom, and the territories and realms? Will he set out that any underfunding is due to a failure of Governments properly to fund the royal family, and dissociate himself from the disrespectful and unwarranted report published by the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr Speaker
I hope that the cheers for that proposition will be noted in the north of England.
Mr Lansley
On the contrary, the Prime Minister rightly stressed the coalition Government’s priority. In tough times, we are ensuring that those with the highest incomes pay a higher proportion of tax, and that low income earners and the lowest paid have their tax reduced by £700. Three million people are out of tax altogether, so those on lower incomes benefit the most from the Government’s tax policies.
Mr Speaker
Order. I must thank the Leader of the House and Back Benchers for their succinctness. Thirty-nine Back Benchers contributed in 34 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which shows what can be done when the pressure is on us.
Point of Order
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the Government are heavily amending the Immigration Bill on Report, which means that a substantial Bill is skipping the normal process of scrutiny and extra time is not being given. To make matters worse, the Government have not even bothered to table explanatory statements. They promised that they would do that, when they opposed making them mandatory. Do you agree, Mr Speaker, that their failure to do so now on such a complex measure at the very last moment is a serious abuse of our legislative process, and is there anything you can do about it?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am bound to say that she both looks and sounds very shocked. I hope she will understand when I say that, although she is a very seasoned politician with experience in another Parliament, I have been here a little bit longer and have therefore seen quite a lot of things before and am perhaps not quite as regularly shocked and astonished as she is.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just so the hon. Lady understands and the House is aware, on explanatory statements on amendments, the Government have made it clear that we will attach explanatory statements on amendments in relation to any Bills introduced after 1 January. The Immigration Bill was not introduced after 1 January.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Leader of the House, because that coheres with something I was about to say in any case. There are really two points. First, it is up to Ministers to decide what programming arrangements to put before the House. On 22 October, as the hon. Lady will doubtless recall, the House agreed to a day for Report on this Bill. It is up to Ministers whether to propose any further time. Secondly, on explanatory statements, the House decided that they would not be mandatory. It is indeed up to Ministers, and not to me, whether they are tabled or not. I had been intending in any case to say, and will now do so, that it is my understanding that Ministers will soon be providing such statements as a matter of routine. It would not have applied, as the Leader of the House has explained, in this case. I hope that that is helpful. At any rate, the matter is on the record.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 13, 14, 88 and 100. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Clause 2
Meaning of consultant lobbying
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1, and Government amendments (b) and (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 2 to 4, 101 to 103, 5 and 6.
Lords amendment 7, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 8 to 15.
Mr Allen
I am delighted to initiate the debate.
The Bill has a chequered history as regards Parliament’s involvement in it so far, which, I am sorry to say, has demonstrated in spades the contempt that the Executive have for the legislature. I would like to expand on that just a little before I get into the detail of the amendments.
The contempt started when this Bill first came to the House, and is continuing to the very end of the process without relenting. We started this Bill having had some pre-legislative scrutiny of what we all called the lobbying Bill, only to find that one day before the summer recess a mega-Bill was presented, two thirds of which had not even seen the light of day in public let alone been discussed, analysed or subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny by this House. That is our job, but we were prevented from doing it because this Bill was presented far too late in the day, one day before a summer recess. Just to add insult to injury, it was then stuffed into the parliamentary sausage machine one week after we returned from the summer break.
That story has been repeated throughout the passage of the Bill. One might have thought that, even if only for the sake of window-dressing, there would be the odd pause, the odd break, the odd extension, or a gap between consideration by their lordships and this House, but not a bit of it. That demonstrates the way the Government treat this House, particularly when they have an embarrassment such as this Bill in front of them.
Mr Speaker is an authority on these matters and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that it was possible to have a shorter period between consideration yesterday in the second Chamber and consideration today in Parliament. Could the House have squeezed that period even more? Could we have met last night to discuss this?
The Government had a pause in the other place, which I welcome. Six weeks is not wonderful and my Select Committee called for six months—we called for the job to be done properly. We were grateful for those six weeks, however, but there was no opportunity for colleagues in this House to consider what their lordships had said and read it carefully, because, as we know, amendments were being made up to the very last moment in the second Chamber. None of us had that opportunity—Front Benchers, colleagues who are interested in this issue and above all Back Benchers, and, may I say, the Select Committee, which seeks to represent Back Benchers and which has the legitimacy of being a Select Committee elected by Members from all parts of this House in a secret ballot, with a Chair elected by the whole House. Despite that legitimacy, none of us was allowed to see any paperwork or the Order Paper after that consideration in the second Chamber yesterday. It is an absolute disgrace, and it cannot be allowed to continue if we are to have any reputation in this House for doing our job on accountability and scrutiny effectively.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but my initial suspicion was nevertheless valid. It was a point of great interest and it is on the record, but it was not a point of order. Never mind—he has made it.
Tom Brake
I need to make some progress, as we do not have much time for the debate.
We should streamline public services, not impose additional burdens on them. We should provide the public with relevant and useful information, not overwhelm them with huge volumes of unhelpful and extraneous data. The House accepted these arguments in our debates on part 1, and did not seek to extend the scope of the measure in the manner proposed by hon. Members. We should respond to the Lords amendments constructively by proposing an amendment in lieu in respect of the proposed extension to capture special advisers, but we should not seek further to extend the scope in a manner that the Lords have specifically rejected.
Briefly, Lords amendments 2 and 3 deal with recipients of communications. They are minor amendments and improve drafting to clarify and provide greater consistency in the terminology used in relation both to the recipients of the lobbying communications and to the communications themselves. Lords amendment 4 is a minor amendment that clarifies the fact that the term, “Minister of the Crown” does not, in the context of the Bill, capture the two bodies of persons, the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. As clause 2 makes clear, the communications that the register is intended to capture are those that are
“made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”.
The definition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 includes the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. Both those entities, however, are bodies of persons with which it is not possible to make personal communications. As such, the Lords amendments remove those bodies from the definition, and in doing so provide further clarity regarding the communications that fall within the scope of consultant lobbying.
Lords amendments 5, 6 and 7 deal with the code of conduct. In Committee in both Houses, the Opposition tabled amendments that required lobbyists to sign up to a statutory code of conduct and face sanctions for any breaches. As we exposed during the debates in both Houses, the Opposition’s amendments were based on a miscomprehension of the role of codes, both statutory and voluntary, in the regulation of lobbying. While the Opposition suggested that such codes are in existence and operate successfully in other jurisdictions, we have not been able to identify any international precedent for the type of code that has been proposed. Furthermore, the Opposition could propose just one provision for inclusion in that code: a prohibition on inappropriate financial relationships between lobbyists and parliamentarians, which is unnecessary, given the fact that there are parliamentary codes, as well as laws, on bribery and corruption. Once the shortcomings of the Opposition’s amendments were demonstrated, both Houses were able confidently to reject them.
My Lords—not my Lords—the objective of the part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not anticipate a sudden transformation of the House into the other place.
The objective of the part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency and scrutiny. We are not seeking to regulate behaviour. During the debates, however, the Government heard calls from both Houses on the importance of ensuring that the statutory register complemented the existing self-regulatory regime. That reiterated the message of inquiries by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The self-regulatory regime is the mechanism by which the industry promotes the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. We are grateful to Members in both Houses for their thoughtful suggestions as to how we can best ensure that the register complements the regime and, after careful consideration and discussion with the industry and transparency groups, we have concluded that the most effective option is to provide for a statutory link between the statutory register and the industry-hosted voluntary codes of conduct.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
First, Mr Speaker, let me pay my personal tribute to Paul Goggins, a colleague held in the highest respect and affection throughout the House. His loss will be felt widely and for a long time.
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 13 January—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on a motion relating to welfare reforms and poverty. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 15 January—Opposition day [17th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, including on the subject of banking.
Thursday 16 January—General debate on child neglect and the criminal law, followed by general debate on nuisance calls. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 17 January—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 20 January will include:
Monday 20 January—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 21 January—Opposition day [18th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, including on the subject of pub companies.
Wednesday 22 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2014.
Thursday 23 January—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 January will now be:
Thursday 16 January—Select Committee statement on the publication of the 10th report from the Justice Committee on Crown Dependencies: Developments Since 2010, followed by a combined debate on the second report from the Justice Committee on Women Offenders: After the Corston Report and the fifth report on Older Prisoners.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate all those who were recognised in the new year’s honours? We take pleasure, of course, not only in Members of this House being recognised for their service but in the recognition of those who give service to Parliament and take part in voluntary and public service. They include Michael Carpenter, the Speaker’s Counsel, John Pullinger, the House Librarian, and Nicholas Munting from the Catering Service. I also congratulate those within government who have been recognised, including the principal private secretary to the Patronage Secretary, Mr Roy Stone.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House for what he said about those who work in the service of the House and have been recognised. All of them are thoroughly deserving. As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, Michael Carpenter and John Pullinger are especially well known to me, as I work with both of them closely and on a very regular basis. They are deeply deserving of the recognition that has been afforded to them.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for his tribute to Paul Goggins and wish to add my own. His untimely death this week has shocked and saddened all Members across the House. He was a kind and caring man who campaigned tirelessly for social justice, including his recent work securing the passage of the Mesothelioma Bill. All our thoughts are with his wife, his children, his family and his many friends.
May I also associate myself with the Leader of the House’s comments, and yours, Mr Speaker, about those recognised in the new year’s honours list? I cannot help wondering, given his appearance today, whether his hairdresser feels somewhat left out—perhaps it is an easier job with hair like his.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business—although, if we take away Opposition days and Back-Bench business, we yet again have very little meaningful Government legislation. Will he tell us whether that is what we can expect for the next 16 months? I note that the Government’s self-proclaimed flagship Immigration Bill is still mysteriously absent from future business, despite its consideration in Committee concluding on 19 November. Can we expect consideration on Report soon, or is the Prime Minister still running scared of the 69 Tory Back Benchers who have signed the rebel amendment?
We expect the Queen’s Speech some time in the spring, but the Government have yet to confirm a date. With the European and local elections scheduled to take place on 22 May, the pre-election purdah will be in force from the beginning of May. Unless the Government are planning a state opening with no announcements at all—I would not put it past them—it looks as though the Queen’s Speech will have to take place in June, after the Whitsun recess, the dates of which the Leader of the House has already announced. What conversations has he had with the Cabinet Secretary on the matter? Can he now tell us the date of the Queen’s Speech?
The universal credit fiasco continued this week as we discovered a war between the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for the Cabinet Office over IT support. Last night the Minister for the Cabinet Office slammed the DWP’s implementation as “pretty lamentable”. Will the Leader of the House arrange for him to make a statement to the House on why the Cabinet Office and the Government Digital Service have walked away from that costly chaos?
The Chancellor this week wished everyone an unhappy new year with a speech underlining his ideological obsession with rolling back social progress and shrinking the size of the state to pre-war levels. He announced his ambition for a further £25 billion of spending cuts in the first two years of the next Parliament, with £12 billion coming from the social security budget. The Deputy Prime Minister immediately called it a “monumental mistake”, and even the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions briefed against it. Treasury Ministers were unable to say which benefits would be targeted, but refused to rule out those for the sick and the disabled.
The Chancellor told us in his speech that 2014 would be a year when Britain faces a choice, and he was right—a choice between a Government who give tax cuts to millionaires while prices rise faster than wages, and a party that wants the economy to work for the many, not the few. He is doing his best to hide his failure to balance the Government’s books by 2015, but people across the country are £1,600 worse off under his watch and we will not let him rewrite history to cover up his failed economic plan. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor, rather than making these announcements where he cannot be questioned on them, to come to the House and tell us where his £12 billion of extra social security cuts would come from?
I hope that all Members had a good break over Christmas and have returned refreshed and ready for the new year. If the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues had a new year’s resolution to be better at their jobs, I must say that they have made a pretty shaky start. We have only been back a week and we have already seen the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rowing with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office about the gargantuan mess that is universal credit, we have seen the Education Secretary slapped down by his colleagues for trying to politicise the commemoration of the first world war, and we have had the spectacle of Liberal Democrats frantically trying to distance themselves from a Government they are a part of while simultaneously accusing the Tories of stealing their policies. All the Liberal Democrat press office can do is desperately retweet a BuzzFeed item listing
“ten reasons the British public will fall back in love with the Deputy Prime Minister.”
I would like to disagree with the Mayor of London, who this week called the Deputy Prime Minister a “prophylactic protection device”. Now I know I am not the world’s greatest expert in this area, but I thought you were supposed to be able to trust contraception.
Business of the House
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady has just missed Transport questions—[Hon. Members: “She was here.”] I beg her pardon. I did not mean that she was not here. I meant that she did not get her question in—[Hon. Members: “She did.”] Oh, I apologise. If she has asked that question, she has, from a business point of view, already had a chance to raise it. [Hon. Members: “She wants a better answer.”] My answer would be to draw her attention to the unprecedented £38 billion of investment that is being provided through Network Rail, which is increasing capacity on the railway system across the country.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that repetition of points in the Chamber is not an entirely novel phenomenon.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
We have already had a question about broadband, but I wonder whether I may ask the Leader of the House about it too. We had an announcement last week about broadband throughout the UK and the extra money that is being made available. This issue affects every constituency, throughout the UK. Because we still have anomalies in cities, towns and rural areas, may we have time in this Chamber to allow Members to discuss the problems in their constituencies relating to the roll-out of broadband throughout the UK?
Mr Lansley
And a merry Christmas to the hon. Gentleman.
I do not think that the arrangement is ludicrous; it is conventional. We will take that suggestion away, as we regularly look at these matters, but I do not hold out any immediate promise to him.
Mr Speaker
I have always thought that the party conferences could perfectly well take place at weekends. I cannot for the life of me see why we have to go away from our main place of work for that rather self-indulgent exercise. But I would not want to express any views that could be considered to be controversial.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
May we have a debate on what constitutes “high risk” when it comes to referrals for breast cancer screening? A constituent of mine whose mother and two sisters have sadly been diagnosed with breast cancer has bizarrely not been assessed as high risk and, as a consequence, has been denied access to screening, which is causing her and her family great distress, as I am sure hon. Members would understand.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, I have been calling for several weeks for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment on the planning regulations for solar PV panels in rural locations. As the Leader of the House will know, in rural north Essex—the northern part of my constituency—more than 300 acres of solar PV panels are being planned, which will affect the villages of Liston, Belchamps, Foxearth and Twinstead. The matter is a continued aggravation to my constituents and they would very much appreciate a debate on this important issue.
Mr Speaker
Frankly, I cannot say that I was much aware of the hon. Gentleman’s current preoccupation, but I assure him that I am now.
Mr Lansley
Happily, Mr Speaker, so am I. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the issue with Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government when they answer questions early in the new year. In addition, since there will no doubt be Members elsewhere in the House who have similar concerns, my hon. Friend might try to use the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee to seek time for a debate on the issue.