Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue, and hon. Members across the House are extremely conscious of the importance of this. He will recall that the Home Secretary made a statement this week, and, of course, Ministers envisage that there will be a great deal of further discussion in this House about these matters. The Home Secretary has explained that she intends shortly to be able to appoint the chair of the overarching inquiry and then set out the terms of reference. I know she will want to keep the House updated on that. While it is clear that, given the range of matters the House needs to debate next week, I cannot offer a further debate next week on these matters, I have no doubt that over the coming months there will need to be many opportunities to discuss what has happened in Rotherham and may well be happening elsewhere. The Government, like all political parties and Members, are determined that all possible lessons will be learned.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I was concerned that my right hon. Friend did not reply to the shadow Leader of the House on the question of the ports services regulation. The reason I raise this is that there is a grave issue of European scrutiny at stake here. The position is that the ports services regulation is opposed by the trade unions as well as by all 47 port authorities. The matter was referred to the Floor of the House by my European Scrutiny Committee, but the Government declined that request and referred it to a European Standing Committee, which imploded yesterday because documents were not made available to the Committee, and the Chairman rightly adjourned the Committee as a result. That was extremely unusual—indeed, it was almost unprecedented. There are grave scrutiny concerns involved in all this. The real question, when it comes down to it, is this: we have called again today for a debate on the Floor of the House, but the Leader of the House’s statement has made it clear that the Government have not made such a debate available. Furthermore, because of the timetabling, the real question is going to be about 8 October. Finally, I would simply say: may we have a debate on the Floor of the House on this matter? How can this regulation be stopped? That is the crucial question.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is better able than any other hon. or right hon. Member to conduct a debate with himself, which he both opens and closes.
Points of Order
William Cash Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House is in his place and I have a sense that the point of order from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is of a pressing topical character, so we will take it now before we come to the Select Committee statements.
Sir William Cash
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I entirely accept your observations on my attempting to get in during business questions, but I was not here earlier because I was waiting outside the Chamber, as I feared that the Government might introduce a Command Paper, of huge importance to this House and to the United Kingdom, on the issue of justice and home affairs and the opt-outs and opt-ins on 35 measures. That is the reason for my point of order. I fear that I have to say that the Government, knowing that that was the case, did not refer to that paper in the business statement. The difficulty is that by reason of it not being raised before, I was precluded from seeking an urgent question, because I was not entirely aware of the fact that it was going to happen. I simply make the point that I feel very strongly that we should have a debate as soon as possible on the issue. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be good enough to indicate the position through you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that that was a point of order, but he has put his concerns on the record. The Leader of the House will say whatever he wants to say, but I just point out that he did reference the general debate on the UK’s justice and home affairs opt-outs, which will take place on Thursday 10 July.
House of Commons Business
William Cash Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I agree with my hon. Friend. The motion is not about giving rise to legislation. It is about this House sharing directly, in the same terms as the House of Lords, an expression about how we should frame legislation in future to make clear the relationship between this House, and the privilege applying to this House, and legislation, particularly in circumstances in which legislation is intended to apply to this House and its activities. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to agree with that.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I want to be clear that the Leader of the House is endorsing paragraphs 226 and 227 of the report in terms, because they are quite explicit. They set out the position. On the one hand, the objective is simple; on the other, it is quite complex. It is important, for the purposes of this debate, that the words of our conclusions on these matters are explicitly set out and not just referred to as paragraphs 226 and 227.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that I am setting out to secure the agreement of the House on the motion before us. What we intend should be in the motion before us, and not what is beyond or additional to it. We intend to achieve just that.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is free to make his own contribution to the debate. For my part, I hope I have explained what we intend to achieve through the motion. Colleagues will have had the opportunity to look at the debate in the House of Lords, and I hope that exactly the same was clear from the nature of that debate. The purpose is to ensure that we have, in both Houses, an understanding that we should not have mutually conflicting approaches to legislation. We should approach legislation in a consistent fashion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) told us, we should have a way of recognising the application of parliamentary privilege to the proceedings of this House. We should also ensure that, in so far as we intend legislation to apply to this House and where it may have an impact on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, we put express provisions in the legislation to show, for Parliament’s purposes, what we believe the nature of those provisions and their application should be. That is what we are setting out to do.
On proposed new Standing Order No. 33, Members may recall, from the debate on the motion for an address in answer to the Queen’s Speech last May, that the current Standing Order does not provide absolute clarity on the number of amendments that may be selected on the final day of the debate. To be clear, a revised Standing Order is not an attempt to prevent you, Mr Speaker, from selecting an amendment, as you did on that occasion. It would not prevent you from doing that. As you will recall, you selected an amendment signed by Back Benchers on the omission from the Gracious Speech of an EU referendum Bill. That was, in fact, the second amendment selected, in line with normal practice. The third amendment selected, tabled by Plaid Cymru Members, was the one beyond normal practice that would not, under previous practice, have been allowed.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, after the Budget we conventionally introduce the Finance Bill, which affords an opportunity to debate these issues. He could also have raised the matter in the recent debate on the National Insurance Contributions Bill—I do not know whether he did. However, he should not have neglected to say that these are precisely the low earners who have benefited most from the Government’s increase in the personal allowance, which has taken 3 million out of income tax altogether.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have asked the Leader of the House over and over again—more than 10 times—for a debate on the Francis report. It was debated this morning on the “Today” programme. The Nuffield report, which has just come out, contains a foreword by Francis saying it is time that the regulator’s system-based culture was changed. I have a list of all the occasions this month when business has collapsed in the House, yet the Leader of the House keeps saying there is no time to debate the report. Will he please ensure that the House has a chance to discuss it properly?
Mr Lansley
I sympathise with my hon. Friend’s frustration, and I hope we can debate the Francis report soon. It is a year today since it was published, and since then much has been done, including the introduction of accountability under the new inspection regime and the new chief inspectors of hospitals, social care and primary care. A tremendous effort has been made to instil a culture of openness and candour in the NHS, to focus on safety and to create an understanding that quality of outcome is the overriding priority. I agree with what Robert Francis said in the Nuffield report foreword:
“The vast majority of front-line staff, who are consistently hard-working, conscientious and compassionate, have to understand that criticism of poor and unacceptable practice is not aimed at them but is part of a struggle to support everything they”—
and indeed we—
“stand for”
in the NHS. My hon. Friend raises a valid point about business. I hope that all we are doing and all that needs to be done will be the subject of a debate ere long.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I thought I had answered the point on the Immigration Bill. We have a running commentary from the silent one. Sometimes on days when we have remaining stages we lose time as a consequence of urgent questions or statements, but we will endeavour to do whatever we can to avoid any additional statements beyond the business question next Thursday. Of course, there will be opportunity through the usual channels to discuss the timing of debates. As the Opposition will know, we always attempt to ensure that subjects can be debated properly.
I told the shadow Leader of the House last week that last year I announced the date of the Queen’s Speech on 7 March. We are still in January; we are before the point at which on recent precedent the date of the Queen’s Speech is announced. When I can, I will tell the House the date of the Queen’s Speech. All this speculation is literally nothing more than that.
The shadow Leader of the House will understand that I will not comment on her points about the Liberal Democrats. I do not know whether she was commending Thomas Cromwell. Having read “Wolf Hall” and “Bring Up the Bodies”, we have not reached the point yet at which Thomas Cromwell became the Lord Privy Seal and, speaking as the Lord Privy Seal, I am quite looking forward to that moment for a little potential guidance. It might give me some forewarning of the point at which I might be the subject of what we might term my own Henry VIII clause.
The shadow Leader of the House did not tell us anything much about the recent good news. She might have asked me for a debate on some of the forecasting issues. It is quite interesting. We have heard the IMF forecast that Britain will be the fastest-growing major European economy this year. The OECD forecasts likewise. Business confidence, according to a Lloyds TSB survey this month, has reached its strongest level since January 1994. British Chambers of Commerce referred to manufacturing confidence and intentions being at their highest for several years. This week we had the unemployment data: unemployment is down to 7.1%, down 0.8 points since the election. The employment level is above 30 million. It would have been interesting for the shadow Leader of the House at least to have suggested a debate about forecasting since it contrasts with the forecast of the Leader of the Opposition that our economic plan would lead to the disappearance of a million jobs. On the contrary, we can see that it has led to the success of our economic plan and of enterprise in this country.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about crime stats and NHS waiting data. The crime stats this morning show that crime levels are down to the lowest level for 32 years. The shadow Leader knows perfectly well that in addition to those crime statistics, the British crime survey shows a similar substantial reduction in crime, which shows that our police reforms are working and crime is falling. As for NHS waiting times, she will recall that at the time of the last election 18,458 people had waited over a year for their treatment. Now that number has come down to 218. We have dealt with the people who are waiting the longest. We have reduced by 35,000 the number waiting beyond 18 weeks, and the average time that people wait is still low and stable.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport has not made a statement today on the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment relating to HS2, which many people will find surprising. An important aspect of that judgment pertains to the legislative supremacy of Parliament, which is being carefully examined at the moment. In that context, will the Leader of the House consider giving time to my own Bill, the United Kingdom Parliament (Sovereignty) Bill, in order to resolve those questions?
Mr Lansley
The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on those cases yesterday. It found unanimously in favour of the Government and rejected the challenges to HS2, both in relation to the strategic environmental assessment directive and on the question whether the Bill process breached the environmental impact assessment directive. So the Government won both those cases.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jenkin
I will return to that matter, but when my right hon. Friend employs the word “privilege” in that context, he is not employing it in terms of parliamentary privilege. It is not a parliamentary privilege that protects our ability to write to Ministers on behalf of our constituents. That is not covered by parliamentary privilege.
With the indulgence of the House, I wonder whether I might quote the Lord Chief Justice when he made it clear that we should, if possible, avoid legislating on matters regarding privilege. He said:
“Parliament has to decide whether it has sufficient privilege to be able to conduct its business in the way that Parliament wishes. If you have reservations about that, you have to produce a system that enables you to have the conditions under which you can perform your responsibilities properly. If you had no real reservations about it, I would not go down the legislative route that defined, semi-defined, subdivided, allowed for, or exercised this and that, because you would end up in interminable discussions, and, in court, interminable arguments, about what that really meant. Unless you are dissatisfied with the way in which your privileges operate, I would leave this well alone.”
By that, I think he means that the courts are predisposed to defer to proceedings in Parliament, whatever statutes may say.
The 1689 Bill of Rights is one of those special statutes in our legal system that is implicitly present in every statute. We do not need to repeat what is in the Bill of Rights 1689 in every statute in order to immunise it for the purpose of parliamentary privilege. The one exception that we have made is in respect of the IPSA legislation—the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—in which we inserted the words that I am proposing in my new clause:
“Nothing in this Act shall be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.”
I submit that the House of Lords put that clause in the Parliamentary Standards Bill in rather extreme circumstances. When that Bill arrived in this House, it seemed that it was going to go into areas that were previously considered part of the exclusive cognisance of this House. It was going to refer to disciplining Members for what we did in this House, and that was going to draw parliamentary proceedings into the consideration of the courts in a way that was unprecedented. All that was eventually taken out by the House of Lords. In those exceptional circumstances, when the courts were under enormous public pressure to take more draconian action following the expenses fiasco, it was reasonable for Parliament to put that clause into that Bill, but generally we should try to avoid putting any reference to the Bill of Rights 1689 into legislation.
My amendment 1 suggested that we delete paragraph 1 of schedule 1. I note that the Government have now proposed that we remove both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of schedule 1. Paragraph 1 removes language which is lifted from the Bill of Rights 1689, without referring to the 1689 Act. Because there is no reference to it, paragraph 1 does not place the wording in the special category in which the Act exists.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My hon. Friend is reaching the nub of the issue. With something as delicate as article IX of the Bill of Rights, there is nothing worse than trying to produce another version of what it is supposed to mean, which is bound to cause confusion and uncertainty and raise the question of interpretation, making it more likely to be adjudicated by the courts, whereas the Lord Chief Justice said that that should be left well alone.
Mr Jenkin
My hon. Friend has, typically, put more pithily than I could a complex legal argument. By drawing the courts into adjudicating on these words, we would be devaluing the 1689 Bill of Rights. That would be irresponsible. If the courts start arguing about all this, we will have to legislate on the matter and risk losing our historic immunity.
Our conclusions, clearly stated in the report, were:
“The extent of Parliament’s exclusive cognisance changes over time, as the work of Parliament evolves”
and it would be impractical
“to draw up an exhaustive list”.
We continued:
“Where there is uncertainty in a case brought before the courts, the extent of Parliament’s exclusive cognisance will be determined by the courts.”
We stated that
“if Parliament were to consider that its privileges had been reduced to the extent that it could no longer effectively perform its core work, it could in the last resort change the law”,
but finally that
“legislation should only be used when absolutely necessary, to resolve uncertainty or in the unlikely event of Parliament’s exclusive cognisance being materially diminished by the courts.”
Neither of those last two conditions exists. There is no uncertainty.
We made further recommendations about how our 1689 privileges could be clarified. It is fashionable to believe that over the years parliamentary privilege has been eroded by the courts. That is a two-way street. In certain circumstances, Parliament might exercise privilege in a manner that has recently been ruled to be subject to court proceedings. It would depend on the circumstances, and we need to hold out the prospect that in extremis we would exercise privilege in a way that the courts might not expect us to do, given the way that privilege has been exercised in the past.
We no longer send out a posse of soldiers to arrest people on behalf of Parliament, and I do not suppose we will return to that in these democratic days, but who knows what will happen in the future? Parliament should reserve its right to assert its privilege in order to be able to conduct its proceedings immune from the courts, immune from the Executive, under any circumstances.
Mr Thomas
I commend the hon. Lady for her work with the National Autism Society, not least because it does an excellent job but also because a former member of my staff works for it. Whether her work with the National Autism Society would have been called into question by the Bill is an extremely pertinent point. It is a worry that Ministers rushed out the Bill, and it appears—this is why I have asked the question of the Leader of the House—that not very much advice was taken from the House authorities before the Bill was published. As a result, considerable concerns have been raised by Members on both sides of the House, detracting inevitably from the House’s ability to look at other parts of the Bill.
Will the Leader of the House set out with whom he, his ministerial colleagues or others involved in drafting the Bill consulted before inserting the offending paragraphs? I ask because it has not always been easy to track which Minister and which Department was leading on this Bill and it would be useful to know whether the Leader of the House has considered whether a repeat of the error might be avoided in the future. I emphasise gently to the Leader of the House that the mistake might have been avoided had there been pre-legislative scrutiny, a further period of public consultation and a proper attempt to involve the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in particular.
I turn now to a question that I raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex: the impact of the Bill on the other place. As the Bill is currently drafted, a Member of Parliament’s pay could also be construed—a point the right hon. Member for Wokingham made—as payment for third-party consultant lobbying. In the other place, peers are given an allowance and are not paid a salary. There is an expectation that those in the other place can earn a living beyond their work there. The House of Lords code of conduct is currently being reviewed by a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It would be helpful to get a specific assurance from the Leader of the House, or his colleague the Deputy Leader, on the extent to which, if at all, the Bill as drafted, and as it would be if the Government amendments were carried, would affect the other place. These are clearly questions that members in the other place will want to explore, quite rightly. But we also have a responsibility to think through some of the issues around the other place. It would be helpful to hear from the Leader of the House on the extent to which he has considered this question.
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I say to the Leader of the House that I did not realise that Mr Cash wished to come in? I call Mr Cash.
Mr Cash
I am sorry for inhibiting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a short moment.
I just want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said and draw attention to the real reasons why this matter is so important. I have already made the point that the proposal would simply create confusion and the extreme likelihood that there would be interpretations by the courts as a result of a difference of language between what is contained in schedule 1 and the wording of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is best left alone; that was the essence of what the Lord Chief Justice said.
As someone who served on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, I want to make something absolutely clear. Curiously enough, the word privilege is almost a misnomer. It is not a privilege; it is a necessity. I would say that of any Member of this House. We cannot have freedom of speech to protect our constituents without having the right to be able to say whatever needs to be said in this House to protect them. That is whether in relation to HS2, on which I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—I am totally against it—or anything else. The absolute necessity for maintaining the right of an MP to speak within the framework of the rules of the House must not be interfered with by any court or any outside agency. We have to have that right as that is the essence of our democracy.
What we are really discussing here, apart from the very important question—I concede that it is important—of not getting into a conflict with the courts or having differences of emphasis or wording that could give rise to interpretations, is that it is absolutely essential to remember that these issues are for the benefit of our constituents and the national interest.
In 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege —our predecessor committee—said:
“Parliament makes the law and raises taxes. It is also the place where ministers are called to account by representatives of the whole nation for their decisions and their expenditure of public money. Grievances great and small can be aired regardless of the power or wealth of those criticised.
In order to carry out these public duties”—
I repeat the word “public”—
“without fear or favour, parliament and its members and officers need certain rights and immunities. Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs free from intervention by the government or the courts. Members need to be able to speak freely, uninhibited by possible defamation claims.”
The Irish Government argued recently at the European Court of Human Rights that
“parliamentary immunity has developed throughout the world not as a constraint upon the rights of the citizen but as a fundamental liberty.”
I could enlarge on this but I do not need to do so.
Mr Jenkin
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this point. He says “around the world”. It is often thought that parliamentary privilege is unique to our rather odd partly written constitution, where the fundamental principles are accepted and not written down. That is not the case. Every parliamentary democracy in the world grants its legislative authority some kind of immunity in order to ensure that it can carry on its function of holding the Executive to account, and legislating and discussing with impunity. It is not unique to us; it exists in America, Australia and elsewhere. They all wrestle with this problem of how to make it work.
Mr Cash
That is the very point I am seeking to make. I would also point out that a number of other countries have got themselves into serious turmoil and trouble where the right of the people to speak freely is inessential and incidental to the manner in which their constitution is construed. In many countries, whether dictatorships or quasi-democracies, the inhibitions on the freedom of their members of parliament to speak as they must on behalf of the national interest or on behalf of their constituents is constrained by a lot of activities which, in effect, put them in fear. It is precisely because this House as a whole ensures, through its own regulation of the behaviour of Members, that that freedom is maintained, that we can guarantee that we can serve our constituents in the national interest.
That is all I need to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I need to say something, just to help you, because obviously I know that you want to discuss the new clause and do not want to drift into the wider arena. I am sure you will have appreciated me trying to help you with that.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Allen
I must press on—I am sorry that I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Who are we trying to constrain? I shall tell the House of just a few organisations that have sent evidence to my Committee. They include fringe organisations such as Citizens Advice, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Royal British Legion and Oxfam. Those organisations have written to the Committee in the past week or so. Others include the Voluntary Sector North West, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Roald Dahl’s Marvellous Children’s Charity, the British Youth Council, the National Trust, the Women’s Support Network, Christian Aid, the Stroke Association, Girlguiding and—this is the real hardcore—the Woodland Trust. Mencap and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have also written to the Committee. Surely we intend to make those organisations believe they have an increasing rather than a diminishing part in our democracy.
I ask the Government to think again and to do so seriously. The Committee will propose amendments on redefining terms. A number of colleagues have asked what the Government mean by “electoral purposes”. What does that capture? We want to give people reassurance on that.
The Committee has taken evidence from the Electoral Commission. The last thing the Electoral Commission wants is to be given responsibility for the measures and to be made the judge. It wants clarity and to remain impartial. It does not want to be drawn into arguments on freedom of speech. It does not want to be the arbiter of what is or is not quasi-political and of what is perfectly legitimate.
Mr Allen
I am sorry—I have only one minute left, so I must press on.
I made a point briefly—I will not make it at length—about expenditure on campaigning. If that expenditure must also include staffing and a number of other things—material costs and so on—that it did not previously include, the pot for actual campaigning for charities and other organisations is diminished. We need to be clear about that but, having briefly studied it, I am not clear. Friends who have lobbied me, the Leader of the House and others are also not clear. If we make them risk-averse, we will diminish our democracy, not improve it.
We need to look again at part 3. I am mystified as to why trade unions would not know where their members are—their lifeblood is ensuring they know where their members are because their members pay the subs and the wages and keep those organisations going. They have to know who their members are for industrial relations ballots, so it is in their interests to keep those records up to date.
Summer Adjournment
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake
The hon. Lady has put her clarification on record.
I heard Members behind me expressing surprise that Europe was not a big issue. I can only say that consistently, year after year, when I ask people what issue is most important to them, they reply that it is health, education or law and order. It is not Europe. I think we had better leave it at that.
As the hon. Lady will know, the European Union (Referendum) Bill is currently being debated, and will return to the House in September. I do not know whether she is a member of the Bill Committee, or indeed whether she would wish to be a member of it, given that its sittings seem to be finishing quite late and may continue to do so. She said that there was scope for reform of the European Union, and I accept that. I think there is agreement among Members on both sides of the House that the EU can and should be reformed. The justice and home affairs opt-outs, for instance, are part of the process. That reform may well deliver some changes which I think would be supported by Members in all parts of the House.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Let me point out to the Deputy Leader of the House—who represents a constituency where my family lived for the best part of 100 years—that his assertion that Europe is not much of a priority in the minds of the electorate is completely at odds with the findings of all the opinion polls over a number of years. He might like to look at the report of a Westminster Hall debate entitled “National Parliaments and the EU”, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) the day before yesterday, and in which I took part. I think that all the questions to which he ought to be referring now are contained in the speeches that she and I gave.
Tom Brake
I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s family were resident in my constituency 100 years ago, but things may have changed in the last 100 years. All that I can reflect today is the feedback that I receive regularly from my constituents—and I should add that I am the only one who has that information. No one else here has it.
On the European Union, let me finally say that one of the risks of being outside it—I think that this is Norway’s experience—is that a country will end up paying much more than it would pay if it were inside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made one of a number of suggestions that have been made today about holiday reading for Members. He recommended “You Can’t Hide the Sun”, by John McCarthy, and he spoke of what is happening to the Bedouins. He has tabled an early-day motion on the subject, and he is not alone: I believe that 21 Members signed it. There is clearly an acknowledgement in this place, at least, that it is a significant issue. I certainly agree with him that both the Israeli and US Governments have a significant responsibility for sorting out the situation there. I am pleased, therefore, that John Kerry has won Arab League support for his initiative to try to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and if they do restart I hope the Bedouin issue will come up. We need to see urgent steps to ensure that a two-state solution is introduced there. I am sure the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will look very carefully at my hon. Friend’s strong words on this subject when Hansard is published.
The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) put on record his concerns about a failure to respond to his correspondence. I will ensure that is communicated to the Prime Minister’s office, and I hope a response to his letter is forthcoming. He talked about the NHS and alcohol, too. I hope he will acknowledge that the NHS budget is one of the budgets that has been safeguarded when many others have not. On alcohol, I think it is fair to say that a lot has been achieved through the public health responsibility deal, and it is worth pointing out that binge drinking is reducing, rather than increasing, which is also a positive trend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) described a terrible experience a North Korean student working with her at present had in North Korea. He is subsequently leaving that country. Her contribution highlighted the fact that often the issues of asylum and immigration get mixed up and we lose sight of the fact that the UK has a very important role to play in providing asylum for genuine cases of the type she described.
My hon. Friend referred to Lord Alton’s book. I happen to have a book called “Escape from Camp 14” by my bedside at the moment. I understand it is also about Korea, and although it is not exactly light holiday reading I intend to read it over the summer break.
My hon. Friend also gave some useful concrete examples of how UK citizens can help directly in North Korea. She gave the soft examples of making a financial or business contribution as a way of trying to open up a society that is still very closed. Finally, what she said about the desire of North Koreans to have access to information reminded me of the meetings I had about 30 years ago when I was in Czechoslovakia—as it then was—and met up with Hungarians. The Czechs were too scared to talk to westerners, but the Hungarians were a bit braver, and one of the things they said was how important it was that they could get news that was real news. They did not want to get their news through a filter that filtered out what was genuinely happening. That is clearly what is happening in North Korea, and the UK remains extremely concerned about reports of widespread and continued systematic human rights violations there. My hon. Friend will be aware that the UN has commissioned an inquiry to investigate human rights abuses, and we encourage the North Korean Government to co-operate fully with it and to engage with that process. My hon. Friend referred to the launch of a campaign on 27 July that will be about raising the profile of the situation in North Korea and trying to achieve there what was achieved through the Burmese campaign.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) went into some detail about a constituent of his, Ms Chung, and he has put down a very detailed request that I am sure the Home Office will want to respond to. I welcome the fact that the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, has also indicated that he will follow that matter up immediately, and I therefore hope my right hon. Friend will get a swift response on the issue of the passport, the fact that his correspondence has not been responded to and the request that the Home Office look at having a fast-track procedure. He will be aware that one of the reasons the changes were made to the UKBA was to ensure a separation between its role in processing the customer-focused part of the work it does from the enforcement part, to try to achieve what he was trying to achieve for business people.
The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, focused on obesity and diabetes, as I mentioned earlier. He is a recognised campaigner on the issue in this House and referred to some of the statistics that highlight why we should take the matter seriously. As 10% of the NHS budget is spent on addressing the issue and 80% of cases are preventable, there is a clear win for the health service if we can focus on that. He referred to the responsibility deal and clearly felt that it was a mixed blessing—or at least that it was not delivering in the way he would like and that the substance behind it had not materialised. We all, as a Government, as Members of Parliament and as members of the wider public, need to do our bit to ensure that the 536 organisations that he referred to as having signed up to it are doing what they volunteered to do and to draw attention to them if they have not.
The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that I visited Greenshaw secondary school, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), which has recently changed the catering contract and appointed a new chef. The new chef is cooking everything fresh in the school and there has been a huge uptake in school meals as a result. I visited and the queues were phenomenal, as a lot of the children chose to stay in school to have their meals as opposed to taking packed lunches or leaving school. Things can be done in schools, even within the same budget, if they are willing to be imaginative. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the matter in relation to diabetes in the House before, in the debate on 24 April 2013.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) mentioned the distressing case in Meltham involving a postman, Jason Lee, and we will all want to join the hon. Gentleman in wishing him a full recovery. The hon. Gentleman and all Members will know that the CWU has done a lot of work on the issue. It is not only postal workers—I suspect that we have all been out delivering leaflets fairly recently and have faced the same sort of risks trying to push our respective party literature through doors in our constituencies. It clearly is a real issue and we have probably all experienced individual cases similar to the one he described.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) intervened to suggest that the hon. Member for Colne Valley was trying to compete with the hon. Member for Southend West in listing constituents who had achieved notable things, but the hon. Member for Colne Valley praised volunteers, which is something we cannot do enough in this place. I want to take the opportunity to praise OGRES—the Onslow Gardens residents association—which I visited yesterday. It is a volunteer organisation like any other, and is campaigning against a large McDonald’s that it does not want to see built on Stafford road. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 4th Golcar Scouts and the effective work they have done in signing up lots of adult volunteers to help them expand the work they can do.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the Tour de France—which, it seems, might be slightly lost if it is going through his village, or to have gone slightly off-piste—and it will clearly be a fantastic event for Yorkshire and the UK. We will all cherish the occasion, particularly if we manage to win it again.
Of course, we had a debate yesterday about MPs and second jobs. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not just a second, but a third, fourth, fifth and sixth job, but they are all volunteer jobs, so if the motion had been agreed to, he would not have been banned from undertaking them.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the last speaker in the debate, mentioned the fatalities on the A35 and the discussions he has had with the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency about Hunter’s Lodge junction. He has used this opportunity, rightly, to raise the issue’s profile. He talked about health funding for primary care. It is an interesting fact that the age profile of residents of Axminster and Honiton is what we are expecting the national age profile to be by 2035, so we probably have quite a lot to learn from those towns’ experiences, in terms of types and costs of services. He made a request for a new school; I am sure that the Department for Education will have listened carefully to that request, and will respond to it. He also asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider carefully issues to do with environmental schemes and payments to farmers. I am sure that it has listened carefully to his contribution.
We have come to the end of this debate. I have had slightly more time to wrap up than I am used to, so I will take a few minutes to thank you, Mr Speaker, for keeping us on a fairly tight leash this Session; the staff of the House for helping us to ensure that this place runs smoothly; and the staff in the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons for supporting me and the Leader of the House in our roles. I hope that all Members enjoy the recess and come back full of energy in September for the full programme of activities that we will undertake then.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
As I understand it, this is simply a matter of the proper processes relating to the approval of a royal charter by the Privy Council being pursued, in circumstances in which other proposals are also being presented. The Privy Council Office has gone through a process of securing the examination of other proposals as well, but these are matters of continuing discussion among my colleagues and I will ensure that the House is updated as soon as we are clear about the timing.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Leader of the House will not be surprised by my question, because this is the fifth time that I have asked for a debate on the Francis report. In fact, I am now going to insist on one, if I may. I know that the Secretary of State for Health believes that there should be a debate on that issue. It is incredibly important for the national health service and for the people affected by what happened in Mid Staffs and by the Francis report. Will the Leader of the House please provide time for a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House before the recess? Giving excuses about approaching the Backbench Business Committee is simply not good enough. We want a debate, and we insist on it.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend and other Members have discussed this matter with me, and I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) about it this week. I have said before, and I repeat today, that it is our expectation that we will secure a debate on the Francis report. However, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I think it makes sense for us to do so at the point at which the Government are in a position to make their full response to the Francis inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will know that an interim response has been made thus far. I cannot therefore commit to a debate on the Francis report this side of the summer recess, but I will continue to have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on when it will be the right time to do so.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. In the light of the imminent end of this parliamentary Session, I gently remind hon. and right hon. Members that somewhat greater ingenuity than normal will be required if their business questions are to be in order, bearing in mind, as they will, that those questions must relate to future business of the House. Perhaps we can be offered a textbook example of the genre by Mr William Cash.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I shall certainly try, Mr Speaker.
Last Saturday, 30,000 people gathered in Stafford regarding the outcome of the Francis report on the whole Stafford hospital saga; my right hon. Friend is well aware of the tragedy. The Prime Minister has given his personal assurance that there will be a debate in due course. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House prepared to make sure that it happens much sooner rather than much later?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend knows that I am very well aware indeed of the situation at Stafford and all the circumstances that led to it. He will recall that the Backbench Business Committee very importantly secured a debate on NHS transparency and accountability. In response to his questions, I have made clear my view that once we have gone beyond the interim report made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, there should be occasions in the future, when the Government make a formal response to the public inquiry held by Robert Francis, for the House to have further opportunity to debate it.