Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

1. What progress has been made in implementing the Prime Minister's policy to hold more free votes in Parliament.

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

The Government are committed to strengthening the opportunities for hon. Members to hold the Executive to account. We have introduced a number of measures to increase Back Benchers’ power, including establishing the Backbench Business Committee, helping to facilitate the election of Select Committee Chairs and members, extending Select Committee powers over public sector appointments and relinquishing the Executive’s power to call general elections.

[Mr Bone]

I obviously did not make my question clear enough; I was talking about free votes. Quite rightly, the Government have reformed a lot in Parliament and have done a very good job, but as a reformer, here is just a suggestion: between now and the end of the Session, could we have free votes in Committees to test out what the Prime Minister promised us in May 2009 and see how it works?

[Sir George Young]

For my hon. Friend, every vote is a free vote. The speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made referred to Public Bill Committees and suggested not total free votes but more free votes; and we have had more free votes in the House on certain issues which, in the previous Parliament, were whipped. Having said that, I hope my hon. Friend will understand that most of us got here wearing a party label, and that it is wholly legitimate for the party to expect some loyalty to the manifesto on which the Member stood.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Since gaining the keys to No. 10, the Prime Minister has alienated at least 81 of his colleagues over the vote for the EU referendum and is yet to deliver free votes on other issues. Is it not the case that here we have a Government led by a cavalier Prime Minister, who is abandoning his cheap promises more quickly than he is distancing himself from his unhappy Tory Back Benchers?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady would be speaking from a position of strength had her party not divided on precisely the same issue as the Government. It is an issue on which all parties were divided last week, and my right hon. Friend has not alienated 81 Back Benchers.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

2. How many e-petitions he expects to have attracted 100,000 signatures on the Government's e-petition website by the end of July 2012.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for the week commencing 7 November will be as follows:

Monday 7 November—Money resolution relating to the Localism Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Localism Bill. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement following the G20 summit.

Tuesday 8 November—Motion to approve a European document relating to European budgets, followed by motion to approve a reasoned opinion relating to credit institutions, followed by Backbench Business Committee [un-allotted half day], which will include the presentation of the 10th report from the Transport Committee on high-speed rail, followed by a motion relating to the cost of motor insurance.

Wednesday 9 November—Opposition day [unallotted day]. There will be a debate on youth unemployment and jobs, followed by a debate on individual voter registration. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 10 November—General debate on armed forces personnel.

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

Monday 14 November—Consideration of Lords amendments.

Tuesday 15 November—Motion relating to fisheries, followed by motion relating to fuel prices. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

I would like to inform the House that we will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 15 November.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 24 November 2011 will be:

Thursday 24 November—A debate on extradition.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. We meet for business questions in the middle of the first ever Parliament week, which aims to make people more familiar with the vital work that we undertake here. The theme is “Stories of democracy”. From the Levellers to the suffragettes, there are many inspiring stories of the fight for the vote that we should celebrate in this place. It is more important now than ever, in these times of economic upheaval and insecurity, that we cherish and value our democratic traditions.

I am sure that the Leader of the House, like me, is looking forward to welcoming the UK Youth Parliament to these Benches tomorrow. With almost 1 million young people unemployed—the highest level since comparable records began—we certainly need to hear the voices of young people. I look forward to joining them at the start of their debate.

On Monday’s consideration of the Localism Bill, does the Leader of the House feel comfortable with the chaotic way in which the Bill has been handled by the Government? Having resisted our arguments in Committee in this place, they promptly deleted or amended great chunks of the Bill in the other place. Ministers still have a problem with their own side on the national planning policy framework.

Tuesday’s disappointing growth figures confirmed that the UK economy is still bumping along the bottom, when we need strong growth to get unemployment and the deficit down. Thanks to the Chancellor’s rash choice to cut too far and too fast in his spending review last year, we are experiencing the slowest recovery from recession in 100 years. Will the Leader of the House admit that the Government will have to revise down the growth figures and revise up the amount of borrowing for the fourth time in 18 months? How many more times must the Chancellor come to this House and admit that he has got his sums wrong before we get a plan B?

It has been reported in the run-up to today’s G20 meeting that the Treasury is preparing to increase our contribution to the International Monetary Fund bail-out funds, despite the Chancellor giving the impression to this House that there would be no additional contribution from the UK to help solve the eurozone crisis. Has he been entirely frank with the House? Is the attempt to claim that none of this money will end up supporting the eurozone not dancing on the head of a pin?

While nearly 1 million young people are worried about whether they will ever get a pay packet while this Government are in office, one small group of people are doing very well indeed. A report by Income Data Services showed that the total earnings of directors of FTSE 100 companies increased by an eye-watering 49% last year. That comes when public sector workers have a pay freeze and there has been a below inflation increase in the private sector.

In May last year, the Prime Minister trumpeted his creation of the fair pay review led by Will Hutton. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said of out-of-control executive pay:

“It is time to return to planet Earth.”

Yet one year on from those comments and nine months after the Prime Minister received the report, executive pay continues to rocket out of control, unchecked by Government action. When will the Government bring to this House concrete proposals to do something about this matter? Does the Leader of the House not accept that until the Government act, no one will take seriously the Chancellor’s preposterous claim that we are all in this together?

Has the Leader of the House seen today’s damning report from the Fawcett Society, which accuses the Government of being responsible for the greatest risk to women’s financial security in living memory? When will the Government start to listen to the growing chorus of women’s voices that is demanding that they change course?

Finally, the House was shocked to discover that, despite announcements by the Prime Minister’s spin doctors last November that Lord Young of Graffham had resigned, revelations have now surfaced that he never even left the building. We were told that he had resigned for embarrassing the Prime Minister by proclaiming that many people had

“never had it so good”

as since the start of “this so-called recession”. It seems that he has continued to advise the Prime Minister at the heart of the Downing street machine. Can we have a statement from the Leader of the House on this Government’s understanding of the definition of the word “resignation”? Will he please clarify the position of Lord Young—was his resignation a sham or has he somehow been unresigned?

[Sir George Young]

I look forward to welcoming the UK Youth Parliament to this Chamber tomorrow and to making a short preliminary address along with you, Mr Speaker, and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). I hope that many of those young people will return in due course as Members when the Chamber is sitting, rather than on a non-sitting Friday.

We are to debate youth unemployment on Wednesday on an Opposition day. I remind the hon. Lady that youth unemployment went up by 40% under the previous Government, at a time when the economy was doing better than it is currently. The Opposition therefore have little to lecture us about on that.

The Localism Bill does not actually include the national planning policy framework. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome what is happening on Monday, when we will spend a whole day on localism. There are a number of Government amendments that I hope will be welcomed on both sides of the House because we have listened to the debate on the Bill and made some changes.

On forecasts, the hon. Lady ought to know that the Government do not make economic forecasts. That is done by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Its next report will come out on 29 November when the Chancellor makes his autumn statement. Some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised in relation to the IMF have just been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.

I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not find time to welcome the news from earlier this week about the revival of Stanley dock in north Liverpool, as a result of the regional growth fund, which will help to reduce unemployment in and around her constituency.

Finally, on executive pay, it is worth reminding the House that the average chief executive of a FTSE 100 company earned 47 times the amount earned by the average employee in 1998 and 115 times that amount in 2009, so the gap actually widened under the last Labour Government. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is an unsustainable disconnect between how our largest listed companies perform and the rewards that are on offer. Concern on that comes not just from Government, but from investors, business groups and others. We are considering ways to reform remuneration committees and to empower shareholders, for example by making shareholder votes on pay binding and ensuring that there is shareholder representation on nomination boards. We are consulting on a number of issues, but at the end of the day, it is up to shareholders rather than the Government to determine executive pay.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on transport funding? A recent survey showed that Bradford was seen as one of the most congested cities in the country. My constituency is probably the most congested part of the Bradford district. I am not asking for extra funding for transport, given the terrible financial legacy that this Government were left by their predecessor. What I am asking for is that Yorkshire gets a fairer slice of the transport cake and that Bradford gets an even fairer slice than that.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety that a larger share of the transport budget should be allocated to his constituency to deal with congestion. There will be an opportunity at Transport questions on 10 November for him to press the case for more funding for his constituency with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, whom I will forewarn that my hon. Friend is on the way.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Leader of the House share my concern, in this important and welcome Parliament week, that increasingly there are organisations and individuals in this country who do not believe in equal rights for women? Many of us put our heads in the sand and ignore this issue. It is something that worries me and my constituents, and this House should start to address it.

[Sir George Young]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome a number of initiatives that we have taken recently. For example, we are extending child care for women who work for fewer than 16 hours a week. Yesterday’s statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the reform of pensions had much in it for women, who tend to have part-time and less well-paid jobs. They will gain from the reforms that we outlined. The hon. Gentleman makes his comments in a week when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced proposals to change the rule of primogeniture for the monarchy. If one looks across the board, we have taken a number of steps to promote the cause of women.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

The Government have allocated a welcome £20 million to support advice agencies following changes to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. May I press my right hon. Friend for more information on that £20 million so that advice agencies such as mine in Hastings can find out more about when and how it will be allocated?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right to say that, in the summer, the Lord Chancellor announced £20 million for those providing advice. Announcements will be made shortly about the allocation of that fund, and I know the anxiety felt by the citizens advice bureaux that are waiting for it. I will remind my right hon. and learned Friend that there is a very strong bid from Hastings.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

In a written answer to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), the Cabinet Office said that the public duty costs allowance for former Prime Ministers amounted to £1.7 million in the past five years. May we have a statement on the actual work that these former Prime Ministers have done and whether they have had to provide receipts?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady is tempting me out of my comfort zone. I am not sure that the Government have responsibility for these particular payments. Those concerned are, by definition, no longer Members of Parliament—at least many of them are no longer Members. I will make some inquiries with the relevant authorities to see whether any further light can be shed on her question.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend for providing a day to debate armed forces personnel shortly before Remembrance day? However, does he agree that the arrangements between the House and the Backbench Business Committee in relation to defence matters are not working? Although I would sometimes like to blame that Committee, on this occasion I really cannot do so. Will he enter into negotiations with the Chair of that Committee, who is doing as good a job as she possibly can in the circumstances?

[Sir George Young]

I certainly endorse the last remark. Now is not the time to go into the theology of the Wright Committee and the division of responsibilities between the Government and the Backbench Business Committee. My right hon. Friend will know that the four days for defence debates that were traditionally provided by the Government were transferred to the Backbench Business Committee. I understand why it has not been able to find time for them and, in recognition of that pressure, as he has said, we have now found a day for a debate on armed forces personnel. The Government will continue to do what they can to make sure that we do have adequate time for defence debates, and in the review of the Backbench Business Committee, I will see, in conjunction with the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), whether we can move towards a different regime that meets the aspirations of my right hon. Friend and the responsibilities of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Yesterday, in the Chamber, the Prime Minister roundly and rightly denounced metal theft. But he then went on to say:

“We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to put in place an action plan to deal with this, which will involve looking again at the whole regulation of scrap metal dealers.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 918.]

That is totally unsatisfactory. Everyone knows the answer—it is to license the dealers and to prevent them from dealing in cash. So can the Leader of the House arrange for a debate when that can be explored or, better still, could he use the two spare days he has created in the week after next to put it through and stop what the Prime Minister rightly called “this appalling crime”?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is an appalling crime and the current legislation is basically unenforceable. Dealers are meant to register with their local authority but there are no penalties if they do not do so. The Government are consulting on a range of measures, including the ones he has mentioned—the banning of cash payments, with everything being done by cheque, and having a much tougher regime. We are consulting to see whether we can have a better regime that reduces the damage done by all these thefts.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Mr Speaker, I am sure that you and the whole House will rejoice at the announcement that today a contract will be signed to build an airport on the island of St Helena, and I would like to extend the House’s thanks to all involved. This will bring to an end five centuries of isolation for British people who are proud to live on this overseas territory. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate so that we can discuss how the overseas territories are an important part of this country?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. It is indeed the case that, after protracted negotiations, the Department for International Development has now agreed to fund the airport in St Helena. I would welcome such a debate, and he might like to put in for a debate on the Adjournment so that we can discuss this issue at more length.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Exeter city council and the energy company E.ON have spent considerable time and money preparing to install 500 solar panels on council homes in my constituency, thus reducing tenants’ bills by £120 on average and helping to reduce carbon emissions. That excellent scheme is now threatened with cancellation because of the Government’s decision to more than halve the feed-in tariff. May we have an urgent debate in Government time about this incredible incompetence?

[Sir George Young]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) made a statement on this matter on Monday, explaining why the scheme had to be changed. If we did not do this, all the money would have been mopped up by those few people who are currently eligible; the lower the tariff, the more people that can benefit. We had that exchange on Monday. We are now consulting on how we take the scheme forward and I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on board.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

On Monday, we heard that the Government will provide £9 million to reopen the Todmorden curve, cutting journey times between Burnley and Manchester. We also heard about an additional £7.5 million in business support for local manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises being made available through Regenerate Pennine Lancashire. Both those projects were funded by the Government’s regional growth fund which, it is estimated, will create or safeguard more than 55,000 jobs in the north-west of England. May we have a debate on the huge beneficial impact of the fund on the north-west of England?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry that some hon. Members have taken a rather dismissive view of the regional growth fund, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for identifying a number of projects that will go ahead. We announced £950 million of funding in round 2, supporting 119 businesses and creating or protecting 201,000 jobs. There may be an opportunity on Wednesday for him to come in on that debate, amplify the benefit to many constituencies from the regional growth fund and perhaps encourage those who have been less than generous about it to change their mind.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

This week, Merseyside police announced that it is having to cut 250 officers over the course of the next two years because of the Government’s slashing of its budget. Deputy Chief Constable Bernard Lawson has admitted that there will be an impact on the service that the force is able to provide for my constituents and all the people of Merseyside. May we have an urgent debate on the impact that the Government’s spending cuts are having on front-line policing?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady will remember that, before the last election, the then Home Secretary made it clear that if he and his party were re-elected, they would not be able to guarantee that there would be no reductions in the number of front-line officers. It is the view of the Government that it is possible for police authorities to cope with the budgets they have been allocated and protect the effectiveness and visibility of front-line policing.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

In response to a question from a Labour Member, the Leader of the House mentioned the Commonwealth discussions that the Prime Minister has had about the royal succession. May I urge the Leader of the House to tell us when we might expect a debate on the royal succession Bill and what that Bill might include?

[Sir George Young]

When we have a Bill there will, of course, be a debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. In his statement, the Prime Minister said that we are intending to legislate

“to end the system of male preference primogeniture and the provision that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic would be ineligible to succeed to the Crown.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 31WS.]

Any legislation that we bring before the House has to work for 16 countries, and to that end a group of senior officials from across those countries is working urgently to agree the necessary legislation. When that has been done, it will be brought before the House.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Further to that answer, may I say that the Prime Minister needs to be praised for making his announcement in Perth, which was of course supported by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister? Further to what the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) has said, I have a Bill before the House, which is to have its Second Reading on 25 November, that deals with this very point. I am happy to give that Bill to the Leader of the House so that, instead of drafting new legislation, he can use it and introduce the measures as soon as possible, because when it happens here first, it will then happen in the other 16 countries.

[Sir George Young]

That is an enormously generous offer from the right hon. Gentleman, but he will have heard what I said a moment ago about a working group that is preparing the necessary legislation. He may well have anticipated the output of this hard-working team of people and perfectly drafted his piece of legislation to anticipate what they will recommend, but I am afraid that the Government do not have that total confidence and it might be best to await the output of the working group before we look again at his Bill.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Given the excellent news that Jaguar Land Rover is opening a new engine plant—a £355 million investment, which will create up to 750 new skilled jobs—just outside my constituency, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the skills gap, as this can provide a platform and a legacy for learners in Wolverhampton?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for balancing the news. There is good news in parts of the country and he has just reminded the House of that particular piece of good news. I understand that Jaguar Land Rover is working with the National Apprenticeship Service, the Skills Funding Agency and the black country local enterprise partnership on the whole issue of skills for the new plant. I hope it will be possible to train those who are currently unemployed to give them the skills that they need to work in this new investment—this new engine plant. We are supporting this particular project through the grant for business investment scheme, which is providing up to £10 million.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given the fuss last week about the FairFuel petition, does the Leader of the House accept that No. 10 and the Government may have misled the public into thinking that e-petitions that achieved 100,000 signatures would automatically be debated here? Does he agree that they may also have misled Back Benchers into thinking that the Backbench Business Committee would be there to represent our interests? I know that he would not mislead anyone, but is not the solution to reserve some additional days exclusively for e-petition debates so that the Backbench Business Committee can do the job it was set up to do?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he looks at the coalition agreement, he will see that we made it absolutely clear that once an e-petition got 100,000 signatures it would be “eligible for debate”—I think that is the wording—so there is no question of my or anyone else’s misleading anyone about that. His suggestion that there should be extra time specifically for e-petitions is a helpful one. He will know that the Procedure Committee is reviewing the parliamentary calendar and that we are committed to reviewing the work of the Backbench Business Committee. It may be that those two reviews work together in tandem and that we are able to find extra space within the calendar to debate e-petitions. I know that this is an issue on which the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has strong views.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The Government’s cancer strategy for England recognises that access to radiotherapy is critical to improving outcomes. Radiotherapy takes only 5% of the estimated total NHS spend on cancer care but 50% of patients can benefit from it. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen and supports Cancer Research UK’s “A voice for radiotherapy” petition, which has been signed by more than 36,000 people and will be handed in to Downing street this afternoon? As 2011 is the year of radiotherapy, may we have an urgent debate this year on better and fairer access to radiotherapy in England?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the profile of Cancer Research UK’s petition. I agree that it would be helpful to have a debate and to see what more we can do to reduce any delays in the use of radiotherapy or, indeed, chemotherapy once people have had their operation. There will be an opportunity at Health questions to raise this issue quite soon but, in the meantime, she might like to put in for a Westminster Hall debate so that we can do justice to the important issue she has just touched on.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The last time the Minister for Universities and Science, whom I hold in very high regard, appeared before the Select Committee on Science and Technology, he made a statement that affected the science budget stemming from the break-up of the regional development agencies and the redistribution of moneys. That has subsequently been the subject of a series of exchanges about what he actually said versus what he meant to say. Coincidentally, over the summer a very good paper has been published by the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK showing that the Government’s science budget is affected by smoke and mirrors. May we have an urgent debate in Government time about the truth around the science budget?

[Sir George Young]

On 8 December, which is some time away, there will be an opportunity to raise the issue. In the meantime, I should like to raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just touched on to see whether there is any gap between what my right hon. Friend said and what he meant to say—I am sure there was not—and to deal with the allegation that there are smoke and mirrors in the science budget.

[Andrew Miller]

I was not blaming him.

[Sir George Young]

It sounded as though the hon. Gentleman was blaming him. None the less, I shall raise the matter with my right hon. Friend and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the impact of the VAT threshold on micro-businesses and their growth potential? In my constituency, many small businesses involved in the tourism sector are in the process of closing for the winter period. They are closing not because they are scared of work or because there is no opportunity for them to create a market and carry on working, but because the current VAT threshold creates a cliff edge that penalises them for being successful.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and of course we will take on board what he says. The current VAT threshold, at £73,000, is one of the highest in the EU. It is the case that some traders would like it to be raised so that they are outwith it, but others would like it to be reduced to avoid unfair competition from those who are exempt. I believe that we have got the balance about right, but in the light of his comments I am sure that Treasury Ministers will want to keep this under review.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

We have just passed the fifth anniversary of the collapse of Farepak, but my constituent Deb Harvey, who was a Farepak agent, and her customers have not received any compensation and are still waiting for justice to be done in relation to the people who caused the collapse of the company. Does the Leader of the House feel that we should find time to revisit this issue, not least to ensure that it never happens again?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I think we have had debates on Farepak in the past—possibly in the last Parliament. I will raise this with appropriate Ministers to see where we have got to in the process of getting funds for those who lost money. I would welcome a debate on this matter and she might like to apply to you, Mr Speaker, for a debate on the Adjournment.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May we have a debate on student visas? I am conscious that the Government have already barred 470 colleges from accepting new students as part of their immigration crackdown, but a debate would enable us to explore the extent of the abuse that has been going on and to understand what the Government are doing to stop it.

[Sir George Young]

I understand that there is an e-petition on the slightly broader issue of immigration and if that got through the 100,000 threshold, there would indeed be a debate in which it would be relevant for my hon. Friend to raise this issue. [Interruption.] There might be a debate—indeed. In addition to the 470 colleges that my hon. Friend has touched on, 302 have had their licence revoked and a further 172 have been allowed to continue to teach current students but may not sponsor any new ones from the EU. I hope that he is assured that Ministers at the Home Office have this matter under serious consideration.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has previously told us that he is not keen on having any debate that involves the expenditure of additional resources. However, I wonder whether we might prevail upon him to persuade the Health Secretary to have a debate on NHS procurement, not least because we desperately need a credible plan for jobs and growth, and NHS procurement could provide a way of securing such a commitment.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think I am right in saying that the Select Committee on Health, or possibly the Public Accounts Committee, has recently produced a report on NHS procurement—I think it was the PAC—in which case the Government will want to respond to that in due course. If there are lessons to be learned in order to procure more efficiently, get better value for money and, indeed, create jobs by so doing, of course the Government would like to pursue that.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Ilkley business forum in my constituency has established a new scheme to protect local independent traders and to save the town centre. May we have a statement making clear the Government’s support for small traders and outlining what they are doing to protect such traders from national chains and internet shopping?

[Sir George Young]

I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend’s local authority has done. I believe that our planning proposals will give more weight to local authorities to take the sort of initiative that he has just touched on to protect independent stores and local traders. As for protecting them from unfair, predatory trading from some of the giant chains, the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill may give some protection. Of course, the Government have in the pipeline the broader agenda of deregulation, which I hope will help all the small shopkeepers in his constituency.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

We heard today that house building fell to an all-time record low of 121,000 and that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government has produced a report that condemns the Government’s regeneration policy. Areas such as Woodnook in my constituency are really suffering. Last week, Shelter revealed that in 55% of local authorities people are being priced out. When will the Housing Minister come to the Floor of the House and debate the debacle that is the Government’s housing policy? Let us get to the bottom of this because it is a disgrace.

[Sir George Young]

There was an exchange on housing on Monday when we had Communities and Local Government questions. We have taken a number of initiatives to promote housing. There is the new homes bonus to encourage local authorities, there is our streamlining of the planning system to remove unnecessary delays and, crucially, as we heard in the previous statement, there are low interest rates, which are crucial to enable first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. I hope that a combination of those measures will lead to a revival in house building, and it is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that we had the lowest output in peacetime since the 1920s under the previous Government.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his sympathetic tone about the lack of defence debates that we have had so far in this Parliament. We are still waiting for debates on procurement and defence policy, for example, and we are also still waiting for the annual debate on the civil service. Is not the right answer that we should move swiftly towards having a fully fledged business Committee so that we can end the division of responsibility that has led to these problems?

[Sir George Young]

The proposal in the coalition agreement envisages, certainly in the short term, two Committees: a BackBench Business Committee dealing with Back-Bench time, and a House business Committee dealing with Government time. In the longer term, we may move to a single, integrated Committee, but the initial proposal was that there should be two, side by side. Whether that would resolve the dilemma on which my hon. Friend touched, I am not sure because there would still be tension between, on the one hand, providing more time for Back-Bench business and, on the other, providing adequate time to scrutinise Government legislation. [Interruption.] We are sitting longer in the first two years of this Parliament than in the first two years of the previous Parliament. In the remaining days of this Session, I will see whether there is headroom to provide for more debates on defence, which is what prompted my hon. Friend’s initial question.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

This week, the Government announced a review of feed-in tariffs, which will put at risk jobs across the country, not least at Romag in my constituency which, among other things, is responsible for the security screen in the Commons. At the same time, the Government have provided a regional growth fund so that companies can import solar panels from China for assembly in the UK, so that the onward sale is British. May we have an urgent statement on that piece of economic insanity?

[Sir George Young]

We have had a statement on this enlightened policy, if I may phrase it slightly differently. I am sure that the hon. Lady was in the House when the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) replied to that question. The return on solar panel investment will be roughly what it was when the Labour Government began the scheme. We have recalibrated it to take account of the falling costs of solar panel installation. We are consulting on what replaces the regime after 12 December, and her thoughts will be welcome.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) have said? I am quite shocked, as a new Member, that while we are fighting what looks increasingly like a guerrilla war in Afghanistan and are taking casualties, the House has not spent time generally looking at what we are doing in defence.

[Sir George Young]

I detect the serious mobilisation of the armed forces on the Benches behind me, pressing for a further defence debate. As my hon. Friend knows, we have provided one day and, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), between now and the end of the Session, now that most of the major Bills have gone through the House, there may be headroom to provide some of the debates that were provided in Government time in the previous Parliament but which, for whatever reason, have not been forthcoming so far in this one.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I apologised to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for my patronising tone in my question to her on Monday, but will he ask her to come back and apologise to the House for misleading it when she claimed that unemployment under the previous Government reached 30%?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am sure that it was inadvertent. Perhaps the Economic Secretary would come to the House and explain how she arrived at that figure.

[Sir George Young]

In fairness to the hon. Lady, I welcomed what she said at the outset of her remarks about apologising for any offence that she may have caused my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. I will draw my hon. Friend’s attention to this exchange, and ask her to write to the hon. Lady clarifying the use of the figures and, I am sure, justifying any figure that she used in the Chamber.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Given the recent publication of the Justice and Security Green Paper, which includes proposals on the reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and covers the protection of sensitive material, which is especially relevant to my constituents in Gloucester who work at GCHQ, will the Leader of the House consider providing time in the near future for the annual debate on the ISC?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I recognise his constituency interest. We have both seen the ISC annual report, as well as the consultation exercise announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor a few days ago and the recently published Justice and Security Green Paper. I shall reply in similar terms to the reply that I have given on an earlier occasion. I hope that it will be possible to find time to debate this important matter during the remainder of the Session, but whether in Government or in Backbench Business Committee time is something that needs to be resolved.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

In Ashington in my constituency, 20.7% of 16 to 18-year-olds are classified as NEETs—not in education, employment or training. Will the Leader of the House make time to discuss the bleak future faced by hundreds of thousands of young people as a result of the Government’s policies?

[Sir George Young]

I announced in the business statement that there would be a debate in Opposition time on youth unemployment on Wednesday, so the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise those issues. There will also be an opportunity for Ministers to explain the initiatives that they have taken, including the Work programme, investment in apprenticeships, and universal credit, which were all introduced to try to help the people in his constituency who hope to get into work.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

May we have a debate on the appalling human rights situation in Iran, made worse by the spectre of 3,250 Iranian citizens who are in Camp Ashraf and who will be forcibly removed in 57 days, probably back to Iran, potentially with catastrophic consequences?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. I will contact the Foreign Secretary and ask him to write to him outlining what representations the British ambassador and the Foreign Office have made on this issue.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

A report by the Fawcett Society shows that women are affected worst by Government cuts. Notwithstanding the earlier comments by the Leader of the House, may we have a clear statement from the Government about what they are going to do to ease that pressure on women’s lives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

Women have an interest in the Government’s economic policies, which lay the foundations for sustainable growth, enabling the country to remain competitive. They have an interest in the success of the action that we have taken to get the deficit down and rebuild confidence in the country. Women have much to gain from the success of that policy.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

At the start of Parliament week, and with a leading Parliamentarian at the Dispatch Box, one thing that the Government could do very quickly is move towards the establishment of a business of the House Committee, so that Parliament timetables everything? The commitment, I accept, is not to go beyond 5 May 2013, but could we have it earlier, and may we have a statement from the Chief Whip welcoming that measure?

[Sir George Young]

I know that my hon. Friend has a good working relationship with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, particularly in the light of the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend introduced to abolish the Whips Office.

The Wright Committee recommended the measure but, at the end of the previous Parliament, the outgoing Government failed to accept that recommendation. We remain committed to doing it in the third year of this Parliament. Whether it makes sense to bring it forward before the review of the Backbench Business Committee is complete, I am not certain. However, we are committed to further reform of the way in which the House manages itself, and we are committed to the establishment of a House Committee to work alongside the Backbench Business Committee so that there is a slightly broader basis on which Government business is decided.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House take a careful look at the timing of consultations? Many Members have long believed that consultations are not necessarily the most effective way of changing Government policy, but the consultation on the feed-in tariff is the first occasion on which that which is being consulted on has been announced to come into effect 12 days before the end of the consultation. Considering that point would help the Government, if only to avoid judicial review.

[Sir George Young]

That seems to be a repetition of a question that the hon. Gentleman put on Monday to the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. We had to have a cut-off point to stop the erosion of funds under the current scheme. We are now consulting on what should replace that scheme, which is a sensible way forward.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we please have a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting? Apart from the agreement in principle that was reached to amend the rules relating to royal succession, many other matters were discussed. The Prime Minister routinely makes oral statements to the House after European Council meetings, and it would help reflect the great importance of the Commonwealth if it became routine for oral statements to be made following Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition that the present Prime Minister regularly makes statements to the House. He has made 23 so far this Session—a higher average strike rate than his predecessors. With statements after Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, we have followed the procedure adopted after earlier such meetings. There was a written statement to the House in 2005, in 2007 and in 2009, and we have simply carried that procedure forward.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by Mr Les Bennett, a small businessman in Hull. Seven weeks ago he took to market a new software application that would assist the solar panels industry. His business is now in ruins because of Monday’s announcement about the feed-in tariff. May we please have a debate on the Government’s commitment to small businesses and the renewables industry?

[Sir George Young]

Obviously, I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. I am not quite sure why a software application should not continue to be relevant even though the tariffs have changed. I hope Mr Bennett can recalibrate whatever product he has, in order to cope with the new regime.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

Heathrow and Gatwick are operating at 99% capacity, leaving little scope for the UK economy to take advantage of the growth opportunities in the BRIC economies—those of Brazil, Russia, India and China. After the debate on the airstrip on the island of St Helena, in which the Leader of the House expressed such interest, might we perhaps find time for a further debate on UK aviation strategy and proposals for a new hub airport for London, so that such important opportunities do not go begging for a moment longer than necessary?

[Sir George Young]

There will be an opportunity at the next Transport questions for my hon. Friend to raise that issue. He raises a serious point about the future of aviation policy. I would welcome such a debate in Westminster Hall, either according to the guidance of Mr Speaker or in Backbench Business Committee time, so that the Government can set out their current aviation policy and those who are in favour of alternative provision can make their case.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the future of local and regional newspapers, many of which have been under some strain recently? Is the right hon. Gentleman as delighted as I am that following my representations, the Leicester Mercury is now available in the Library?

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—but I hope that he is not going to start a bidding war in which all hon. Members seek to catch Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye and raise the fortunes of their local newspaper. We have just had Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place, but I am sure that the Leicester Mercury will adequately record this exchange.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

There is concern in my constituency over the intention to close Birch ward, at the hospital of St Cross in Rugby, later this month. That action arises because of the need to reduce the deficit within the hospital trust, which includes a large private finance initiative hospital based at Coventry. May we have a debate to consider the consequences of PFI funding, which was so favoured by Labour in the delivery of health care?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear of the problems that confront my hon. Friend’s local hospital as a result of the private finance initiative scheme. We have done a review of PFI schemes that has produced annual savings of about 5% on NHS PFI schemes. I will draw the case of my hon. Friend’s hospital to the attention of the Treasury to see whether that scheme is one of those under review. Twenty-two NHS trusts have identified their PFI payments as an issue in terms of being financially sustainable, and plans have now been agreed for most of those at local health economy level, to ensure that that does not undermine their sustainability.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Hindus everywhere a belated happy Diwali last week? As well as welcoming that important festival, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the Department for Education to grant initial approval to St Chaitanya’s school, a new Hindu free school for the borough of Harrow that will provide 1,470 young people with a faith-based education as part of this Government’s excellent free schools programme?

[Sir George Young]

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that initiative. I am glad the Government are taking it forward. It is the second scheme in this country sponsored by I-Foundation. It will be a free school, but like all schools that have a broad, balanced curriculum, it will build its ethos on the faith values of integrity, respect, courage, empathy, self-restraint and humility. I wish the school and its promoters every good fortune in the future.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Recently a constituent came to me concerned that in the space of five days she had received seven separate letters, almost identical, from the Child Support Agency, each envelope containing an identical large booklet. Can we find time for a debate on the efficiency of the Child Support Agency?

[Sir George Young]

I think we all know from our advice bureaux that the current child maintenance system is not working properly. We have in mind a major child-centred reform promoting, where possible, agreement between the parents on the financial regime. I very much hope that once this new maintenance system is up and running, my hon. Friend will have fewer problems such as the one he has just described.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

One of our great concerns is the low number of organ donations in the United Kingdom compared with other European countries, which has led to discussion about possibly introducing presumed consent, which I personally oppose. May we programme a debate in the Chamber to consider how we might increase that number, taking as an example what has happened in other European countries?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I have here my own donor card—which I hope will not be activated in the very near future. We have taken a number of initiatives. For example, when people renew their driving licence they are encouraged to take out a donor card. The issue of presumed consent raises a whole lot of ethical questions, and I am sure they should be debated, but at present the Government’s energy is devoted to encouraging the take-up of donor cards.

royal assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Coinage (Measurement) Act 2011

Armed Forces Act 2011

Pensions Act 2011

Bill Presented

Household Safety (Carbon Monoxide Detectors) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Jason McCartney, Meg Munn, Julian Sturdy, Steve Baker, Andrew Percy, Laura Sandys, Dr Hywel Francis, Karl MᶜCartney, Andrew Stephenson, Chris White and Heidi Alexander, presented a Bill to introduce a requirement that a functioning carbon monoxide detector must be installed in residential properties; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 245).

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The business for the week beginning 31 October will be as follows:

Monday 31 October—Instruction relating to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 1 November—Continuation of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 2).

Wednesday 2 November—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (Day 3).

Thursday 3 November—General debate on the Silk commission.

The provisional business for the week commencing 7 November will include the following:

Monday 7 November—Money resolution relating to the Localism Bill, followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Localism Bill.

Tuesday 8 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to European budgets, followed by motion to approve a reasoned opinion relating to credit institutions, followed by business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 9 November—Opposition day [unallotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Thursday 10 November—General debate on armed forces personnel.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 and 10 November 2011 will be as follows:

Thursday 3 November—Debate on shale gas, followed by debate on electricity market reform.

Thursday 10 November—Debate on funding of social care.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Last Monday was the 50th anniversary of the first session of Prime Minister’s questions. I am surprised that the Leader of the House did not mention that. I know how much you enjoy those occasions, Mr Speaker.

When I looked it up, I found that the first such occasion featured an old Etonian Tory Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, fielding questions about his negotiations to get us into the “common market.” Fifty years on, the latest Old Etonian Tory Prime Minister spent the day frantically pleading with his own side not to vote for a referendum to get us out of it. Macmillan was famous for his “little local difficulties”. I think that the current Prime Minister now has 81 “little local difficulties” of his own making, and more in the Cabinet. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the PM will follow Supermac’s example, and resort to a “night of the long knives” to deal with them?

This Government’s flawed choice to cut too far and too fast before the recovery was secure stalled growth in the economy long before the eurozone crisis. Despite the most ferocious squeeze in living standards for generations, their only plan is to abolish employment rights for millions of people in the workplace. May we have a debate on this week’s leaked report from millionaire financier Adrian Beecroft, which calls for the scrapping of protections against unfair dismissal, and says that creating that insecurity for millions of people at work is “a price worth paying”? Can the Leader of the House tell us why owning four Aston Martins and making lavish donations to the Tory party qualify Mr Beecroft to have a worthwhile opinion on anything?

Last week the Leader of the House told us that rushing forward the debate on EU reform from Thursday to Monday would allow the Foreign Secretary to enrich it with his presence. Can he tell the House how large the Tory rebellion would have been if the Foreign Secretary had not enriched the debate with his presence? And, given that this was the biggest rebellion on Europe in any political party since the dawn of time, can he tell us who is taking the blame? Tory blogger Tim Montgomerie blamed the Prime Minister, accusing him of having a work ethic which is the “opposite of Margaret Thatcher’s”. Apparently our Prime Minister is more interested in the latest box sets than in his red boxes. This week he has obviously been watching too much of “The Sopranos” and not enough “Friends”. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

Indeed. Perhaps I should repeat it.

Is it not clear that the Prime Minister’s plans backfired spectacularly, with half his own Back Benchers defying him? Today we learnt that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has threatened to leave the Cabinet if he is ever forced to vote against his Eurosceptic instincts again, and now we learn that the Justice Secretary has been suddenly pulled out of today’s debate on the Council of Europe, just in case he says something nice about the EU and further alienates the Tory rebels. What has it come to in today’s Tory party when Eurosceptics are bullied and pro-Europeans are gagged?

Given that last night’s welcome agreement in Brussels brings the prospect of a treaty change much closer, can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government’s policy on Europe is now, and may we have a debate about it? While he was getting the Whips to bully them, the Prime Minister was trying to appease his mutinous Back Benchers by promising them reform tomorrow. The next day, his deputy vetoed it. The Prime Minister wants to repatriate powers, whereas the Deputy Prime Minister says that that “won’t work” and is “condemned to failure”. Which is it?

Speaking of the Deputy Prime Minister, his reward for rubbing salt in Eurosceptic wounds this week is being allowed to blow an extra half a million pounds a year on seven new Liberal Democrat special advisers. That is apparently intended to “bolster” Liberal Democrat influence in Whitehall. Perhaps, in the light of all this confusion and contradiction between the Prime Minister and his deputy, we should have a debate about what plans the Government have to repatriate powers from the Liberal Democrats. Is it not the case that the past few days have exposed a weak Prime Minister leading a divided Government, too busy fighting internal battles to fight for Britain’s interests?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady is right: this is the 50th anniversary of the first session of Prime Minister’s questions. I think that the Prime Minister enjoys the event more than the Leader of the Opposition.

I remind the hon. Lady that Supermac never lost an election. As for rebellions, she seems to think that they have happened only under the coalition Government, but the last Government endured much bigger rebellions. In March 2007, 94 Labour MPs voted to delay Trident, and even the hon. Lady has a history of dabbling in rebellions on issues such as foundation trusts.

Let me deal briefly with some of the other issues that the hon. Lady raised. We are committed to reforming employment law, supporting business and encouraging growth, while—crucially—ensuring that we do not weaken the employment rights of workers up and down the country; and we do not comment on leaked reports such as the one to which the hon. Lady referred.

We have just heard a statement on Europe, in which the Chancellor addressed the issue of treaty change. My party is united behind the Prime Minister’s vision for reform in the European Union, and indeed that is an aspiration shared by many across the continent. I agree with Lord Ashdown, who said in an interview yesterday:

“I don’t think Europe needs to be as intrusive as it is and so does Nick Clegg.”

As for the treaty, the hon. Lady will know what the coalition agreement says:

“We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences”.

That remains the position. The coalition parties are in total harmony on the issue.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on happiness? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Is the Leader of the House aware that from this weekend onwards, for several months, many millions of people will be less happy than they could be as Britain is plunged into darkness by early afternoon after we have put our clocks back? If we cannot have a debate, may we have action in future to end this unnecessary and depressing ritual?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this important issue. He will know that a private Member’s Bill has been tabled on the specific subject that he has raised. It has received a Second Reading, and the Government are considering their position and consulting the devolved Assemblies which have an interest in the issue. We want to reach a consensus and make progress.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

May we have an informed debate about the right of public service workers to be appropriately represented at their workplace? Unfortunately, the sponsor of last night’s Adjournment debate was ill-informed and perpetuated the myth that trade unions are “the enemy within.” He represents the same party that heaps praise on our emergency service workers, but seeks to deny them proper representation at their workplace, which is utter hypocrisy.

[Sir George Young]

As the hon. Gentleman said, we had an Adjournment debate on this subject last night. I am sure that the Minister replying to that debate made an informed contribution and dealt seriously with the issues raised. I cannot promise another such debate in Government time in the near future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May we have a debate on freedom of speech? Mr Peter Tatchell—a gentleman for whom I have some admiration—has today attacked the Trafford Housing Trust for its despicable decision to downgrade the position and cut the salary of Mr Adrian Smith, a Christian, for posting private comments on his own private Facebook account on the subject of gay marriage. Should we be putting public money into an organisation that is, effectively, propagating state-sponsored intolerance?

[Sir George Young]

I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and freedom of worship. Of course people should obey the law of the country. I will draw this incident to the attention of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, to see whether there is any action to be taken either by him or the Housing Corporation.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The Backbench Business Committee has experienced a large increase in demand for debate time as a direct result of the introduction of e-petitions. As it is in the Leader of the House’s gift to give debate time to the Backbench Business Committee, will he recognise that his introduction of e-petitions and assigning the Backbench Business Committee to deal with them has led to this enormous increase in demand on time, and therefore allocate extra time, ring-fenced specifically for e-petitions?

[Sir George Young]

May I begin by commending the work of the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Lady in chairing it? Three petitions have passed the threshold. Her Committee has found time for one in Westminster Hall and one in the Chamber, and the third is before her at the moment. I commend the way in which the Committee has handled those petitions. There will be an opportunity to review both the e-petition regime and the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and the Procedure Committee will conduct a broader review of the calendar, which is the context in which we should address the hon. Lady’s concern about how we might find more headroom for the Committee to respond to the many demands on its time.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On the question of happiness, the Leader of the House may be interested to know that 50 years ago this very week Helen Shapiro was top of the hit parade with “Walking Back to Happiness”.

I welcome the upcoming armed forces debate, but will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers are well briefed on the future of the Ministry of Defence police and on housing for the families of military personnel?

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend is happy, as he usually intervenes on matters relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, when he is far from happy. I thank him for his welcome for the armed forces debate. As he knows, there used to be regular armed forces debates in Government time, but responsibility for finding time then passed to the Backbench Business Committee. It has not so far been able to find time for such a debate—we understand why as we have just heard from the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about the time pressures facing the Committee—so the Government have provided a debate in the run-up to Armistice day. We think that that is an appropriate time for the House to remember those who serve in the armed forces, especially as it will now also be held against the backdrop of the ending of action in Libya. We think it is appropriate that the House should have a debate on this subject, which it has not discussed for a year.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand that the Secretary of State for Health is due to make a statement of some kind at 1 o’clock today on the Government’s response to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel findings on the future of health services in north-east London, including King George hospital in my constituency. This morning, the Care Quality Commission published a damning report on the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, criticising poor management and some poor staff attitudes, and saying that the attempt to cut the deficit had led to reductions in the quality of care and that the transfer of services from King George hospital to the Queen’s hospital had not led to efficiency savings. May we have an early debate on these matters? I understand from the Secretary of State’s private office that he is due to make a statement in six minutes’ time, but neither I nor any of the other eight MPs representing the area—all of whom have been campaigning hard to save services at the hospital—have yet been informed of what is in that statement.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about health service provision in his constituency. My understanding is that the Secretary of State for Health will shortly make a decision on this issue, which arises from the work of the panel on reconfiguration of services. When the Secretary of State has made his decisions, the Members concerned will be informed in the usual way, and I am sure he will take into account all relevant information, including any from the CQC.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

When I served as a church warden, I was advised that it was an offence to prevent any worshippers from attending divine service, and that as a church warden I had the power of arrest within the churchyard. I never had to test that, but given the confusion at St Paul’s cathedral, may we have a statement on the legal position?

[Sir George Young]

I commend my hon. Friend on his work as a church warden for the Church of England. As I understand it, there has been a resignation at St Paul’s. So far as I know, the protestors have not closed a bank or caused a single banker to resign, but they have closed St Paul’s and caused the resignation of a cleric who was committed to their cause. The legal situation is complex, as there is a variety of land ownership surrounding St Paul’s. My understanding is that the City of London Corporation is in touch with the Church authorities to see if they can reach agreement on the way forward. In the meantime, I hope that the protestors will heed the advice from a number of sources, not least the Bishop of London, that they should stop their protest and allow free access to St Paul’s.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Domestic violence costs the economy more than £6 billion, and research shows that it is three times more likely to occur when couples are under financial strain. On Monday, the Prime Minister was unable to tell me three ways in which his Government have helped women’s contribution to the economy. In view of that and the fact that the Bill we will start discussing next Monday will reduce access to legal aid for women victims of domestic violence, may we have a statement from the Government on what they have done to protect women from domestic violence?

[Sir George Young]

Only a few days ago, we had a debate in which we assisted women by changing the pension age arrangements, and there will be opportunities to discuss domestic violence in the three days next week that we debate the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The hon. Lady will also know that on Tuesday of this week the Home Secretary started a consultation on Clare’s law, which will bring real help to those suffering from domestic violence by giving people the right to know, or a right to ask, whether they are with a partner who has a history of violence. We have, therefore, taken a number of steps to protect women liable to domestic violence, and next week there will be an opportunity to pursue the agenda further.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

My constituency in Middlesex is driven by small business. May we have a debate on tax and tax reforms, and their effect on small business?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right that small and medium-sized enterprises are the drivers of economic growth, and he may have an opportunity to raise the topic when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes his autumn statement in November. In the meantime, my hon. Friend will know that we have extended the small business rate relief holiday for a year, we are working to abolish 43 tax reliefs in the system to come up with a better regime, and we are cutting corporation tax to the lowest rate in the G7. I hope that will help small businesses in Spelthorne.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the Leader of the House think it is ever right or appropriate for a Chair of a Select Committee to threaten a female member of that Committee with getting “a doing”?

[Sir George Young]

My understanding is that, whatever happened in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Chairman has apologised and I think that is the right action for him to take.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Ealing recently held its first public scrutiny meeting on the aftermath of the riots. One of the main concerns was the slowness with which insurance companies have been responding to claims from riot victims. If that is the case, it is totally unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend raise the matter with the Business Secretary and perhaps ask for a statement to be made to the House?

[Sir George Young]

It would be quite wrong of insurance companies to penalise the victims of the riots by withholding the compensation to which they are entitled. I say in passing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has extended the period during which businesses can claim for compensation. I will certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who may want to raise it with the Association of British Insurers. I am sure that individual Members of Parliament will take up any case where an injustice has been done to their constituents, and pursue it directly and vigorously with the insurance company concerned.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Recently, a female constituent of mine came to a surgery very concerned that she could not get access to a life-saving cancer drug, Femara. This is not to do with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, as the drug is available and regularly prescribed. What she could not do is access it in her chemist, and this is now happening throughout the United Kingdom. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on access to prescribed drugs and on the merits or otherwise of a public service obligation, as every other European country has, to make sure that not only do wholesalers provide these vital life-saving drugs and they are distributed, but every chemist holds stocks of them?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the force of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. We debated health provision yesterday, although I am not sure whether he had the opportunity to raise the matter then. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman, reacting to the strong case that he has just made.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on Government transparency? Hard-working taxpayers are learning today that the previous Government spent hundreds of pounds in an Australian casino. We do not know whether they put all the money on red, we do not know whether they blew it all and we do not know what they did with any winnings, but that is just one example of the misuse of Government procurement cards. Can the Leader of the House also tell us what the Government are doing to crack down on such excesses?

[Sir George Young]

The Government strongly believe in transparency. My hon. Friend will know that our right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is today publishing details of all credit card expenditure of more than £500 made in recent months. We have borne down on the use of credit cards within the public sector, but we believe that transparency has a key role to play. I commend my right hon. Friend for publishing details of spending on Whitehall procurement cards which, as my hon. Friend indicated, has a number of interesting avenues that I am sure the media will want to explore.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

This has been a good week for the Backbench Business Committee. A few months ago, we had a debate in this Chamber about the use of wild animals in circuses, in which the view of the House was very clear. May we have a statement to the House on the progress the Government are making in addressing what they perceive are the legal obstacles to carrying out the will of the House in that respect?

[Sir George Young]

The Backbench Business Committee exists because the coalition Government set it up; the previous Administration failed to do that. I will certainly make inquiries about any legal obstacles that impede the will of the House, as expressed in that debate, being carried forward, and I will ask the Minister concerned to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement of the decision to hold a debate on the Silk commission in Government time, and I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate that important issue of highlighting the fiscal responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. What assurances can the Leader of the House give me regarding the time that will be allocated for that debate, to ensure that the subject is fully discussed in this House?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that traditionally there has been a St David’s day debate on Welsh affairs and that in this Parliament we have not had a debate on Wales. Given the pressure on the Backbench Business Committee, we felt that it was right to debate the Silk commission, which addresses issues of the governance of Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales and, indeed, the commission will want to know the views of the House, and we have provisionally allocated a whole day’s debate for that important matter.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Hundreds of my recently unemployed constituents have heard about job vacancies in the Palace. These are jobs working with charities, offering first-class travel and 40 lavish overseas trips. If the job application forms were made available in Accrington jobcentre, I am sure that we would get a high calibre of applicant. May we have a statement on why those job application details are not available in Hyndburn and Haslingden?

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that I have correctly understood the hon. Gentleman’s question. Is he referring to job vacancies in the Palace of Westminster? Is that the thrust of his question?

[Graham Jones]

Within the Palace.

[Sir George Young]

Jobs within the Palace come from a variety of sources: some are from individual Members and some are from the House of Commons Commission. The House of Commons Commission, as an equal opportunities employer, advertises jobs in the normal way, and I am sure that we would welcome applications from the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate about the incompetence and inefficiencies of the Child Support Agency? Three constituents of mine, David Kidd, Rodney Zuna and Mark Lavery, have been very poorly treated by that organisation. In the case of Mr David Kidd, the CSA is refusing to pay money that is rightfully owed to him after he was found not to be the father of a child, and the situation is causing him immense hardship. Will the Leader of the House raise this issue with Ministers?

[Sir George Young]

I will certainly contact Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to pursue the individual case raised by my hon. Friend. We all know from our own casework that the CSA generates a fantastic amount of work. The Government are in the process of reforming the child maintenance system by putting the child first, encouraging parents to come to an agreement about financial support and then providing statutory back-up where that is impossible. We believe that that will be a better system than the one we have at the moment.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

In the light of this week’s comments by Jamie Oliver about school food, may we please have a debate about school dinners and whether the Government have any commitment to them at all?

[Sir George Young]

The Government are committed to the provision of free school meals with appropriate nutritional content. I would personally welcome such a debate. I cannot provide Government time for one but I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee or you, Mr Speaker, might respond to an application for a debate on the Adjournment.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

At the Quest academy in my constituency 41% of pupils got five good GCSEs, including English and maths, this year. That was an increase from the 23% figure that the previous school, Selsdon high, got just a year ago, making the Quest academy one of the most improved schools in the country. Other neighbouring schools—Edenham high school, Shirley high school and the Oasis academy—also saw big improvements. May we have a debate on how the Government’s education reforms are transforming the life chances of deprived children in my constituency?

[Sir George Young]

We would welcome such a debate, and I hope that the Opposition, who have an Opposition day or two in the weeks ahead, might choose education as a subject for debate. We heard yesterday their somewhat confused position whereby they are in favour of free schools individually, but oppose the policy that generates them.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Given the fact that the Prime Minister on three separate occasions refused to list the powers that he wants to bring back from Brussels, may we have an urgent statement on the matter so that he can spell out clearly to the British people which powers he wants to bring back from Brussels? Is he afraid to do so?

[Sir George Young]

The Prime Minister answered questions on this matter for an hour on Monday and he answered questions yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the coalition agreement, he will find a specific example of where we want to get powers back—it concerns the working time directive.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

When I was born, the global population was 3 billion. It is about to breach 7 billion, and although I can say that I have modestly added to that, it is not all my fault. Such increase is unsustainable, as it will put undue pressures on water, food and even jobs. May I invite the Leader of the House to enable us to debate that very difficult subject, which we need to embrace in the future?

[Sir George Young]

We are all in this together. The figures that I saw, which I believe were published yesterday, showed that two thirds of the increase in the UK’s population was due to immigration, with the rest being due to increased longevity. On immigration, my hon. Friend will know the steps being taken by the Home Secretary to reduce net migration down to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. The steps we have taken regarding students, spouses and workers will all have a downward impact on the future UK population, which I hope he will welcome.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I wonder if the Leader of the House will encourage the Government to have an investigation and make a statement or create a debate on the operation of the 2002 commercial debts Act? I have found, through the wonderful scheme of being a business buddy for the federation of private business, that small businesses find that many bigger companies still write into their contracts a 90-day payment period, even though the Act states 30 days, and even SELECT, the electrical engineering group, says the same. The big businesses are bullying small businesses out of their rights under the Act, and I want to know what the Government are going to do to enforce that Act.

[Sir George Young]

We have just had Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise this issue then. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Business Secretary to see whether there is abuse of that piece of legislation and, if so, what action we can take to stop it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Monday’s historic debate was a great success for Parliament. The mother of Parliaments was watched by our nation and we had 90-odd Members participating in the debate. They spoke from their hearts and when the Division came Members from all three major parties voted differently. One point that has not been established, though, is that that debate could not have taken place had the Leader of the House not personally driven through the e-petitions process, and I do not think the Prime Minister has given him the credit for Monday’s debate that he deserves. Could we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on ensuring that we have more such debates?

[Sir George Young]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his first-class winding-up speech to that debate, which I am sure had an important impact on the subsequent Division? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a firm believer in empowering the House of Commons: he signed up to the e-petition process and the Backbench Business Committee. We are committed to a minimum of 35 days a year for the Backbench Business Committee, and although it is sometimes inconvenient for the Government, we firmly believe that it is right that the House of Commons should have some control of its agenda, at times choosing subjects that the Government perhaps would not have chosen.

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Speaking in Australia this week, President Kikwete of Tanzania urged investors in his country to reinvest the profits from their companies in his country. Unfortunately, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office well knows, he is the same President Kikwete who is in thrall to the media baron Reginald Mengi and who has done nothing to give satisfaction to my constituents Sarah and Stewart Hermitage, whose farm in Tanzania was stolen from them by Mr Mengi’s brother. Could we have a debate in Government time to discuss not only the joys but the dangers of investing in Tanzania?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear about that loss of property on the part of my hon. Friend’s constituents. I shall certainly raise the issue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the FCO Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), is in his place at the moment—and see whether there are any representations it can make to get justice for the people whose property was confiscated.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I am sorry that the shadow Leader of the House feels that there is something wrong with owning four Aston Martins. After all, if one can own two Jags, why not four Aston Martins? Certainly, my constituents who work at the Heritage Aston Martin works in Newport Pagnell will be hoping that Mr Beecroft will own a few more. May we have a debate on the future of the British motor manufacturing industry?

[Sir George Young]

As the owner of a very small bicycle, I look at these fast and expensive cars with some envy. My hon. Friend makes a valid point—conspicuous consumption generates jobs in constituencies such as his. I think it was Lord Mandelson, was it not, who said that nothing inconvenienced him about millionaires? I hope that the Labour party will, perhaps, change its view about Aston Martins and Rolls-Royces, many of which are manufactured in constituencies represented by Labour Members of Parliament.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the law on succession to the throne, particularly the current inequality of male primogeniture? I ask that we have this debate soon, in the hope that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that is currently taking place might make some progress on this matter.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he finds the present law unsatisfactory. It discriminates against women and against people who marry Roman Catholics. He has made it clear that he has written to the Heads of the Commonwealth to try to get agreement. I can only suggest to my hon. Friend that she awaits the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia and sees what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has to say on this matter at its conclusion.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the role and responsibilities of Parliamentary Private Secretaries? Is it appropriate in a modern democracy that Members of Parliament who are neither Ministers nor in the Cabinet should be forced to resign if they vote against the Government? Does not that restrict their ability to represent their constituents and disproportionately reduce the power of the House?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sorry that two Parliamentary Private Secretaries left the Government earlier this week. She will know that when somebody is invited to become a Parliamentary Private Secretary, there is an assumed commitment that they will support the Government in the Division Lobby. If anybody feels unhappy about that, they should not become a Parliamentary Private Secretary. If, having become a PPS, someone feels they cannot support the Government in the Division Lobby, they have to stand down. I think that is set out in the ministerial code and it is a convention that is widely understood on both sides of the House.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how the one-in, one-out policy of controlling regulations is progressing, so that we can determine the extent to which regulations made in this House are being replaced by ones made in Brussels?

[Sir George Young]

We touched on that earlier this week. We are committed to a red tape challenge of scrapping and simplifying regulations that are ineffective and obsolete. We have the one-in, one-out approach and I am sure that BIS Ministers will be happy to respond to detailed questions. We also have Lord Young’s report, which was produced a year ago and made a number of suggestions for relieving the burden on businesses, with the agenda of fostering employment and growth. I would welcome such a debate.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had time to see the set of Rolls-Royce Trent engine fan blades on the green in New Palace Yard, which were produced by the Rolls-Royce factory in Barnoldswick in my constituency. That display is part of a series of events to highlight the potential of high-value manufacturing and apprenticeships. May we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on what progress the Government have made on supporting apprenticeships?

[Sir George Young]

Yes, I bicycled past the turbine and contrasted the horsepower that it represented with the horsepower on the bicycle. My hon. Friend might just have been in the House for BIS questions in which we had a very good exchange on apprenticeships. I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has done. We promised 50,000 extra apprenticeships in 2010-11, but we have actually delivered more than 100,000.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what the Government are doing to be more family-friendly? Child care, child tax credits, Sure Start and the role of health visitors all matter greatly to people in Dover and Deal.

[Sir George Young]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, which contained within it the answer, as he outlined a number of measures—child tax credit for struggling families, early years support for vulnerable two-year-olds, more support for child care within universal credit and increasing the number of health visitors. The Government would welcome such a debate; perhaps he would like to initiate one in Westminster Hall.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

With reference to the shadow Leader of the House’s box-set collection of TV programmes, I suspect that the shadow Cabinet is currently watching “Lost”. May we please have a debate on empty homes? There is a real paradox in my local council area in that while the council is pushing through its top-down housing targets for tens of thousands of new homes, there are 11,000 empty homes. Local people find that very hard to explain when the countryside is being dug up for new homes.

[Sir George Young]

As a former Housing Minister, I share my hon. Friend’s concern. There are about 350,000 empty houses in this country, which is an affront to those who are waiting for good housing. I commend the work of the Empty Homes Agency. In addition, the new homes bonus will apply also to local authorities that bring back into use homes that are currently empty, and other money is available within the local government budget to encourage local authorities to bring homes back into use. I commend my hon. Friend’s work on this issue, and I hope that all local authorities will do all they can to bring empty homes back into use.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

In my Gloucestershire constituency is a huge number of firms that trade with Brazil, but I am very apprehensive about the way in which we are developing trade links with Brazil, Russia, India and China—the so-called BRIC economies—because I sense that other countries are doing better than us. Can we put a spotlight on what the Government are doing to give comfort and support to businesses that wish to develop business in the BRIC economies?

[Sir George Young]

I know that a number of my hon. Friends in BIS and other Departments make export trips abroad with business men to win export orders on behalf of this country, and they have undertaken a number of visits to the markets to which my hon. Friend refers. UK Trade & Investment and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, supported by all the Government, lead on this work. We want to use our network of staff across the globe to showcase UK strengths in sectors where we have world-beating capability and we hope to win more export orders and to provide jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

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

The business for the week commencing 24 October will be:

Monday 24 October—Motion relating to a national referendum on the European Union. This subject has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement on the European Council.

Tuesday 25 October—Remaining stages of the Public Bodies Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 26 October—Opposition day [unallotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 27 October—A general debate on the UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe.

The provisional business for the week commencing 31 October will include:

Monday 31 October—Instruction relating to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 1 November—Continuation of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 2).

Wednesday 2 November—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 3).

Thursday 3 November—Business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 27 October will be:

Thursday 27 October—A debate on NHS care of older people.

I remind the House that the week commencing 31 October will be Parliament week. This is an exciting new national initiative, exploring how democracy affects citizens and how they can participate in it. Of particular interest to Members during Parliament week will be the fact that the UK Youth Parliament is holding its annual debate in the Chamber on Friday 4 November. I look forward to welcoming all those taking part on that day, and I am sure that other hon. Members will take an interest in the proceedings.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. I certainly hope that the business remains the same until we get to Monday because we have had two very drastic changes in less than 24 hours.

I pay tribute to the outgoing Serjeant at Arms, who will be sorely missed when she leaves in the new year. She is the first woman to hold the post and she has served the House with distinction for 18 years.

Never let it be said that business questions does not achieve results. Just 24 hours after my first appearance here as shadow Leader of the House last week, the Prime Minister answered my call to include more women in his Cabinet. If he is going to take my advice that quickly, I start today by calling for an immediate general election. [Interruption.] They are already out there campaigning.

At the beginning of the week we all saw the astonishing pictures of the Minister of State, Cabinet Office taking his regular early morning strolls in the park. He is well known for his wisdom. He recently startled a group of his own Back Benchers by announcing that the Government would run out of ideas by 2012. Some of us think that they already have. He then upset the Deputy Prime Minister by saying:

“We don’t want more people from Sheffield flying away on cheap holidays.”

Now it appears that the Prime Minister’s policy supremo and blue-sky thinker has developed a penchant for al fresco filing and is the subject of two official investigations as a result. Is not the real problem that he has been throwing away the wrong things? Next time he is out for an early morning stroll in the park he should be throwing the Government’s failing economic strategy and their wasteful NHS plans in the bin, rather than disposing of his constituents’ private details. May we have a debate on Ministers who think that the rules do not apply to them?

Speaking of which, in his statement yesterday the Leader of the House said that it was time to move on from the scandal engulfing the former Secretary of State for Defence. Will he accept that we cannot move on while serious questions remain? In that context, it has been widely reported that the former Secretary of State used his then parliamentary office to run his discredited charity, Atlantic Bridge. Has the Leader of the House conducted an investigation into this issue, and if so is he satisfied that no parliamentary rules were broken by that unusual arrangement?

If yesterday saw the House at its most combative, Monday saw the House at its most consensual. The injustice and raw emotion still felt by the Hillsborough families was movingly reflected in this House on Monday in one of the most powerful debates I have witnessed in all my time as a Member of this place. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Backbench Business Committee on the speed with which it facilitated that important debate? Members on both sides of the House now recognise the urgent need to release all the documents relating to the disaster to get finally at the truth and bring some comfort to the families. Following the disgraceful comments yesterday by Sir Oliver Popplewell, who accused the families of harbouring conspiracy theories, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to join Opposition Members in condemning unreservedly those crass and insensitive remarks.

The Leader of the House has just announced last-minute, wholesale changes to next week’s business. There have been two major changes to business in less than 24 hours, and the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward the Public Bodies Bill and shifted the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill back by a week. That Bill has been ambushed by Tory hangers and floggers, and torn to pieces, both in the press and by the legal profession. It is all too obvious that the Ministry of Justice is in a mess and cannot even bring its Bill to the House.

The most revealing announcement from the Leader of the House was about the Government’s decision to rush forward the debate proposing a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union from Thursday to first thing Monday. Fifty-nine Conservatives have already declared their intention to defy their leader, and there are reports that at least five ministerial aides are on the brink of resignation, so is that not proof of a growing Tory mutiny that has the Prime Minister running scared, the Whips Office in a panic and a Government split from top to bottom? Will the Leader of the House confirm that if he thought he could have got away with it, he would have scheduled this debate on Sunday evening during “Songs of Praise”?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions, and I endorse entirely what she said about Jill Pay, the Serjeant at Arms, who has been a doughty servant of the House for so long, and who will be much missed when she retires in January.

The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that within 24 hours I responded to her request for more women in the Cabinet. On the issue of calling a general election, I have announced an Opposition day, and it is perfectly open to the Opposition to table a vote of no confidence in the Government. I am sure that she had the approval of the Leader of the Opposition in laying down that challenge.

We held a debate on the economy last week, and we spent some time on the issue. It remains our view that an essential ingredient of growth is low interest rates, and we believe that the policies advocated by the Opposition would prejudice that. A 1% rise in interest rates would, on average, increase mortgage costs by £80 a month, which would not be welcomed by householders.

I agree that the debate on Monday was a very, very moving debate that showed the House at its best, and it was a credit to the Backbench Business Committee that it scheduled. It was the product of the e-petition system that was introduced at the beginning of this Parliament in response to a coalition agreement commitment, and it was a credit to that system, too.

I have not read the comments by Justice Popplewell, but I would condemn any insensitive comments, particularly at this moment in time. I think that the House is united in urging everyone to work constructively with the independent panel so that the public can finally learn the truth.

The final issue raised by the hon. Lady was the business for next week. When I first became a Member of Parliament, we received the business for one week ahead, and that was it. A few years ago, it was changed, so one week was fixed and business for the second week was provisional. The deal was always that the second week was provisional. We try not to make any changes, because we know that that causes disruption, but occasionally it is necessary. Last Thursday I announced that next Thursday would be devoted to a debate approved by the Backbench Business Committee. The motion was not tabled until yesterday—Wednesday—which was when the Government saw the motion on an EU referendum.

My view—I hope that it is shared by the Backbench Business Committee and the House—is that the debate would be enriched by the presence of the Foreign Secretary. He is available on Monday; he is not available, because he will be at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Australia, on Thursday. That is why we brought the debate forward to Monday, and I think that the House would welcome a debate addressed by the Foreign Secretary. I hope that that is generally understood. Consideration of the Public Bodies Bill in Committee ended two weeks ago, and it is entirely appropriate that we deal with the remaining stages next Tuesday.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my utter frustration with Opposition Members constantly talking women down? May we have a debate to celebrate British women and what the Government are doing to support more women and girls to fulfil their full potential? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are all interested to hear about the frustrations of the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, even if they are expressed from a sedentary position.

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would welcome any opportunity to celebrate women, Mr. Speaker.

We discussed on Tuesday the changes we made to the Pensions Bill, which have reduced the delay that confronted women before they became entitled to the state pension. We have announced changes to the universal credit so that those working less than 16 hours a week will be entitled to child care payments, and we are taking a range of measures, not least the Work programme, that will help those women who want to return to part-time work. I would welcome such a debate, but at the moment I cannot find time to schedule one.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

There will be suspicion in the House about the timing of the Report stage of the Public Bodies Bill. There is growing concern about the Government’s inadequate response to the call for the establishment of the office of the chief coroner. If we consider the Bill on Report next Tuesday, that is well ahead of any intention by the Government to publish and make available the details of the responses to the consultation on this issue. How can we deal with the Bill on Report without those responses? Will the Leader of the House put them in the Library?

[Sir George Young]

The Bill is of course paving legislation; it introduces the capacity to make the changes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The Bill finished in Committee two weeks ago and only one amendment is down for consideration, so I think that one day on Report is appropriate. The progress of the Bill on Tuesday in no way precludes the progress for which the right hon. Gentleman has just asked.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we please have a statement on whether the Government will recompense anyone who planned to attend a lobby of Parliament next Thursday, organised by the People’s Pledge, but have now had to reorganise their travel plans as a result of the rescheduling of Government business?

[Sir George Young]

If the Government were to be liable for changes in the provisional business for the second week, I suspect that the consequence would be that it would never be announced. It is perfectly possible for those who want to lobby Parliament to do so next Thursday.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Although I welcome the participation of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in the debate on Monday, does the Leader of the House agree that such short-notice rescheduling could be avoided by simply giving the Backbench Business Committee a set day every week, perhaps Wednesday afternoon, in which to schedule its business? While on the subject of scheduling business, will he please confirm what time the Government will give the Committee in the Chamber between now and the end of the Session to compensate for the extended length of the Session?

[Sir George Young]

I welcome what the hon. Lady says about the Foreign Secretary’s participation in the debate, as I think it is important, as I said, that he takes part. Although a fixed day for Back-Bench business would give certainty, it would not necessarily overcome the particular problem of Ministers being unavailable on a fixed day for debates that are settled at short notice.

On the hon. Lady’s question, we have said that we will give proportionately more time to the Backbench Business Committee to reflect the longer Session. She will know from the business I have announced that the Committee is getting roughly one day a week. I said in response to her a few weeks ago that once we are through the main Report stages of the Government’s Bills, there should be more headroom in the remaining months of the Session to be more generous to the Committee with time.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I welcome the words of the Leader of the House on the importance of e-petitions leading to debates such as the one on Hillsborough? Does he agree that that also applies to the debate on the referendum, which he has brought forward to Monday? I welcome the fact that the Government have elevated the importance of that debate and recognise how important it is that the Foreign Secretary attends. Does the Leader of the House not also agree that these issues overlap with the core purpose of the coalition, which is deficit reduction and the need to obtain growth, and that growth can be revived in this country only if we are able to deregulate our economy and therefore renegotiate our relationship with the EU?

[Sir George Young]

We are committed to an agenda of deregulation. For example, there is the one-in, one-out rule; there is a deregulation unit working at the moment to see what further deregulation can be introduced; and we are working on the agenda of the report by Lord Young, introduced a year ago. I see no reason why we should not continue with that agenda and still remain full members of the European Union.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

We should not draw up the timetable for our business according to the convenience of Ministers; it should be about the convenience of this House. The Leader of the House has already committed in the coalition agreement to hand over the whole of our business to the Backbench Business Committee by the third year of this Parliament, which I reckon means—[Interruption.] Yes, it says “by” the third year; it does not say “in” the third year. I reckon that means that he has only 19 more sessions of business questions, so when will he bring forward the legislation or Standing Orders to ensure that we do hand over the whole of our business to the Backbench Business Committee?

[Sir George Young]

Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is wholly misinformed about the commitment in the coalition agreement. There is no commitment to hand over the whole of our business to the Backbench Business Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes there is.

[Sir George Young]

There is not. There is a commitment to establish a House business committee alongside the Backbench Business Committee. We are committed to doing that, and we remain committed to doing it in the third year of the Parliament.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am absolutely delighted—indeed, thrilled—that the Government are so keen to discuss the European Union that they have brought the business forward to Monday, but what will the Leader of the House say to those members of the public who might have preferred one or two more weeks to make their views perfectly clear to their MPs?

[Sir George Young]

Earlier in this session, the Backbench Business Committee was commended for scheduling the debate, which was going to be next Thursday and is now next Monday, so I find it difficult to reconcile what my hon. Friend says with the freedom that we have given to the Committee to respond promptly to e-petitions. The e-petition in question was started many weeks ago, and people have had adequate time to contact their Members of Parliament if they so wish to.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the work of the Electoral Commission? A report out today strongly criticises the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland for

“poor planning, insufficient communication and lack of an overall management plan”

for the counts during the Assembly elections, the referendum and the council elections held in May. Voters in Northern Ireland deserve the same high standards that apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so a debate would be very useful in focusing attention on those serious matters.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. I cannot promise a debate, but I will draw the attention of the Electoral Commission for Northern Ireland and, indeed, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the concerns that he has expressed.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the People’s Pledge on pressing for a referendum on Europe and the debate on Monday? Does he agree that another advantage of having the Foreign Secretary here for Monday’s debate is that he will then be able to report the good news to our Commonwealth partners?

[Sir George Young]

That, if I may say so, was not the question I was expecting from my hon. Friend, but it is of course a much easier one, and the answer is yes, the Foreign Secretary will be able to pass on the views of the House when he goes to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting later in the week.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

On 18 July, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning announced that he was working with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and with the Association of Colleges on new forms of support for community-based ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—learning for those in settled communities who are not in receipt of eligible benefits, but colleges have had no funding for such courses since August. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement from the Minister updating us on his discussions with CLG colleagues so that funding can be secured?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the importance of securing that funding for continuity of education. I cannot promise a statement, but I will contact my hon. Friend and ask him to write to the hon. Lady with a response to the important issue that she just raised.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This Sunday a regular season National Football League American football game will be played at Wembley. During that game—[Interruption.] During that game, the NFL will honour our brave servicemen and women, and it is providing 500 free tickets for them. May we have a statement next week supporting that measure and encouraging other sporting events to do the same, and can we ensure that it is not on Monday. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the Leader of the House responds, I note that there is quite a lot of sedentary chuntering about the inappropriateness of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) having a prop. On the whole, we discourage the use of props in the Chamber, but it is fine for the hon. Gentleman to hold the ball or even to put it down—but not to do anything violent with it.

[Sir George Young]

If I may say so, Mr Speaker, you have been very generous. I remember a debate on oranges, when an hon. Member produced an orange and was severely rebuked for so doing, as it had the potential to be an offensive weapon.

I think that that is a generous gesture by the NFL, and it should be commended. My hon. Friend may know that the all-party group on American football had its inaugural meeting yesterday and was, indeed, addressed by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, so I applaud the initiative and hope that it is a very successful game at Wembley stadium on Sunday.

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate before the Christmas recess on the Roma? Everyone in the House is aware of the alarming scenes that occurred yesterday at Dale Farm, and they have been viewed with despair by human rights organisations not only in the UK, but elsewhere. Will he also ask his colleagues in the appropriate Department whether they will take the issue with them into the presidency that we will shortly hold of the Council of Europe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that the cause of the Roma was assisted by the scenes that took place yesterday; they may give a totally wrong impression to the one that the hon. Gentleman wants to give about the Roma community. There are provisions in the Localism Bill now going through the House to strengthen councils’ powers to ensure that such scenes do not happen again, and there is £60 million over the spending review period to help councils and other registered providers provide more sites, but it is important that the law is upheld, and no one should be beyond the reach of it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Daylight Saving Bill, the Second Reading of which the House passed by 92 votes to 10 in December, has been held up for 10 months by the passage of its money resolution. The Bill is unable to make further progress until the Government table that resolution. Will the Leader of the House tell us when he intends it to be tabled so that the Bill can make further progress?

[Sir George Young]

I shall make some inquiries of the Treasury, whose consent would be needed for any money resolution, and when I have had that dialogue I will get back to my hon. Friend.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

When may we have a debate or statement on the situation in Yemen? As the Leader of the House knows, the Foreign Secretary has taken a resolution to the UN Security Council, and we are very grateful for that, but 94 children have now died, 300,000 people have been displaced and 30 schools in Sana’a are now occupied by the military. This is a political and humanitarian crisis. Please may we have a debate about it?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that, following the President’s return on 23 September, there would be renewed outbreaks of violence, and indeed there have been some very worrying incidents, with 110 people killed in clashes. We urge all parties to reach a consensus urgently on implementing a political settlement, leading to the formation of a national unity Government, the restoration of security and early elections. The right hon. Gentleman might like to ask the Backbench Business Committee whether it can hold a debate on that important issue.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Given that the international aid budget is now about £8 billion and will rise to £13 billion during this Parliament, given the fact that one of the worst aid crises ever seen is happening in east Africa, with a record-breaking British response, and given the fact that the Government are leading the world on international development, is it not time that the Department for International Development joined the departmental top table, starting with an hour-long International Development Question Time?

[Sir George Young]

That is an interesting proposition and we would like to have discussions through the usual channels to see whether there is an appetite for it. However, any lengthening of a session for one Department of necessity means reduced time for another, so I should like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s proposition to see whether there is any flexibility.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the Sayce report and its potential impact on the Remploy organisation? The Remploy factory in my constituency has a first-class work force, and I am sure the same is true of its factories throughout the country. Such a debate would allow us to reach the right decision, which should be continued Government support for Remploy rather than unnecessarily throwing people on the dole.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about Remploy. I cannot promise a debate, but he might like to apply to Mr Speaker for a debate in Westminster Hall, or to the Backbench Business Committee, so that we can spend more time on these important issues.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the whipping of Back-Bench business, given that there is now a three-line Whip for those on the Government Benches, a three-line Whip for the Liberal Democrats, and, within the past 30 minutes, a three-line Whip for those on the Labour Benches? Is it any surprise that the British public are increasingly frustrated that this place is more out of touch than ever on the European question with regard to their own opinions?

[Sir George Young]

Whipping matters, happily, lie in the capable hands of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, but I say to my hon. Friend that nothing in the manifesto on which I stood mentioned an in or out referendum. We stood on a manifesto of being in Europe but not run by Europe.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has always been very helpful in trying to make sure that Ministers meet Members of this House, but may we have a statement on what is expected so that we can prevent the situation whereby a Minister in the other place said to one of my colleagues that he is rationing his exchanges with Members of Parliament and offered an official instead, which, I think the House would accept, is outrageous?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The last time this was raised at business questions, I asked for a list of the Ministers who had declined to see hon. Members. I took it up with my colleagues, and I think we reached a resolution. I should like further details of the problems the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I will do what I can to resolve them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on political timing, in which I could try to persuade the Government why now is precisely the right time to hold a referendum on the European Union? It would give my right hon. Friend the opportunity to try to persuade me—in vain, I suspect—that a time when we are cutting domestic budgets is precisely the right time massively to increase our overseas aid budget.

[Sir George Young]

I think that my hon. Friend has rehearsed a speech that he might make on Monday if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr Speaker.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will have heard some of the questions on the collapse of the carbon capture and storage scheme at Longannet on the River Forth. Will he arrange for a debate in the Chamber or a statement on carbon capture and storage? The scheme moved from the River Don, where it was decided not to place it, to the River Forth. I have visited the scheme, and it is technologically workable. The pipeline will always be there, but using the North sea makes it necessary to put a pipeline in, and that will cost money. Surely the Government must explain what they are doing about carbon capture and storage and what the involvement of the Scottish Government is.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I have just re-read the speech that my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary made yesterday, which contained a big chunk on precisely this issue. He confirmed that the £1 billion was still available, and a number of other schemes are eligible. We have therefore debated this recently, and we have just had Energy and Climate Change questions.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is the Leader of the House aware of recent reports that the UK bioscience industry is returning to levels of economic activity not seen for quite some time, and should not this be the subject of a debate?

[Sir George Young]

I welcome the progress that is being made, and I am aware of my hon. Friend’s academic background in this area. I understand that, according to Oxfordshire Bioscience Network, county firms in the field attracted £125 million of cash—80% of the total for the whole of the UK. I applaud the work the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is doing to promote this area of growth.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, the Luddites of Greenpeace achieved a judgment at the European Court of Justice disallowing the patenting of discoveries made where the basis was a human stem cell. This will put British science back for years and damage it enormously. It also increases the likelihood that people suffering from degenerative diseases will not get the cures they need in time. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on this incredibly important issue?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is a good leader in The Times today on this important subject asking what Greenpeace’s interest is in this area of science. Speaking purely personally, I am in favour of research that enables one to treat and prevent degenerative diseases. I will certainly contact my right hon. Friends to see whether there is any action we can take in the light of this decision.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Lord Justice Scott Baker has now published his report into UK extradition arrangements, to which, worryingly, he seems to have given broad approval. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate so that this House can voice its opinion on the report and conclusions?

[Sir George Young]

I agree that it is an important report, and I understand the wide concern that exists. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the very near future, but he might like to try his luck with the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

We now know that the former Defence Secretary’s private office and the permanent secretary knew that he was breaking the ministerial code. We are led to believe that the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister did not know. May we have a statement on why they did not know and what action is going to be taken against the officials for not reporting this breach?

[Sir George Young]

We dealt with this at some length yesterday. The subject is covered by the Cabinet Secretary’s report, which addresses the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman and comes up with recommendations to ensure that if there is a recurrence the necessary steps will be taken and the Cabinet Secretary and, if necessary, the Prime Minister will be notified.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Darent Valley hospital in my constituency labours under one of the first private finance initiative arrangements in the national health service. Could Government time be allocated to discuss how we might best help hospitals that are held back by PFI arrangements that have not exactly stood the test of time?

[Sir George Young]

In some cases, it has been possible to renegotiate PFI arrangements, obviously with agreement on both sides. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary to this issue and see whether there is any role for the Department or, indeed, the Government to play in helping to reduce the burden on this trust.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Department for International Development is rightly putting more resources into countries such as Somalia and Pakistan. However, the Public Accounts Committee is concerned about increased financial investment where there are problems of corruption and governance or where DFID has reduced its administrative capacity. May we have a statement on DFID and financial management?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that his Department has zero tolerance of fraud and abuse. My understanding is that some 82% of fraudulent payments are recovered and that new systems have been introduced since June last year to reduce the likelihood of payments going astray. I know that in due course the Government will want to respond to the PAC report.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the amount of investment by businesses in the UK? We have very good examples such as Airbus, Rolls-Royce and Jaguar Land Rover, but there are examples from right across the country. I would particularly like to highlight the tourism and food manufacturing sectors in my constituency.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to keep a perspective on this. One tends to read disappointing news about closures, but that needs to be balanced by good news such as the investment of Jaguar Land Rover in Wolverhampton, strong order books at Airbus’s plant at Broughton, and the announcement by PricewaterhouseCoopers of a £20 million investment in Belfast. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about getting a balanced debate on these issues.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Prime Minister’s attitude to youth unemployment? Last week, the Prime Minister told me that the future jobs fund provided only phoney jobs. Since then, I have been inundated with young people getting in touch with me to tell me that they had found genuine employment through the future jobs fund. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Prime Minister should be a little more sensitive when talking about such matters?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that the Prime Minister is always sensitive on issues such as youth unemployment, about which he cares deeply. The latest figures show that the number of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training is falling. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. I hope that he will also welcome what we are doing with the Work programme to get people back into work.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Inspired by the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) to the Prime Minister yesterday, may I ask for a debate on the regional growth fund and the new jobs that will be created by the first tranche of £450 million that has been conditionally allocated?

[Sir George Young]

I welcome what my hon. Friend says. I think that the Leader of the Opposition was rather dismissive of the regional growth fund yesterday. The first £450 million has been awarded on a conditional basis to 50 companies. That is expected to create 27,000 jobs directly and more than 100,000 indirectly through associated supply chains.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wonder whether I can persuade the Leader of the House to make this House even more relevant and to enhance its reputation by listening to the concerns of the people—mainly young people—who are clustered around St Paul’s in the City, and by debating in this House the particular concern about the growing chasm between the super-rich who make up 1% or 2% of the population and the ordinary people of our country. It would surely show the relevance of this Chamber if we spoke directly to those concerns.

[Sir George Young]

I hope that the House does address those concerns when it debates the economy, youth unemployment and education. Having listened to some of those outside St Paul’s, it does not seem to me that there is one coherent message. They have a range of objectives. Of course we should listen to them. It is a matter for the authorities of St Paul’s how long this goes on, particularly if it is impeding access to the cathedral.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

There has been no consultation so far with Church and faith groups on the Government’s proposals to introduce legislation for same-sex marriage. As the Leader of the House will know, the view of the Church of England on marriage is that which has been approved by Parliament in the Act of Uniformity 1662 and which is set out in the Book of Common Prayer: that marriage is an act between a man and a woman. When determining the business of the House, will he ensure that there is sufficient time for sensitive and considered consultation with Church and faith groups on this issue? If the principle is one simply of equity, is it also the Government’s proposal that different-sex couples will be able to enter into civil partnerships in church?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I commend the work he does as Church Commissioner in this House. Next week, my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities will start a range of discussions, including with religious organisations, about the consultation document on equal marriage, which we plan to publish in March next year. That will address some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. It is not the Government’s intention to oblige religious organisations to carry out ceremonies with which they feel uncomfortable.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the new Tory thinking on benefits and pensions? It was reported yesterday in The Daily Telegraph that coalition Back Benchers sitting on the Public Accounts Committee have called explicitly for a further cut in the basic rate of state benefits that is used to calculate pensions. Given that Tory policy has created the current levels of inflation, will the Leader of the House comment on the new Tory thinking that wants to reduce the rate for benefits below the consumer prices index?

[Sir George Young]

The Government’s position on benefits was set out in the Budget last June. We made it clear that benefits and pensions should be linked to CPI. We have made firm commitments on that basis. There will be an uprating statement later this year in the light of the latest CPI and retail prices index figures.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

A few moments ago in response to a question, my right hon. Friend described Conservative policy in the last manifesto of being

“in Europe but not run by Europe.”

He will remember a particular occasion on which he was standing for election, when he described himself as being somebody who was

“in the Conservative party, not run by the Conservative party.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 619.]

Does he think that the same principle could usefully be applied to the Back-Bench business on Monday?

[Sir George Young]

I think that the quotation that my hon. Friend refers to was made during one of the speakership elections in which I stood—in fact, I think that I said it in both speakership elections. Had I been elected, I would of course have stood by that. However, on Monday I think that we need to consider what we said in our manifesto. As I have said, there was no commitment to an in or out referendum, but there was a commitment not to transfer any more powers to Brussels. We have secured the referendum lock. I hope that he will listen to the Foreign Secretary’s speech on Monday and come to a conclusion in the light of the balance of the arguments.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Last week at business questions, I asked the Leader of the House about Crosby coastguard and the proposal by its staff to site the maritime operations centre there, which would save the Government a significant amount of money. His reply was that

“the Government are interested in all options that might save money”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 488.]

I wonder whether he has had time to discuss this matter with his ministerial colleagues, and what the answer might be.

[Sir George Young]

Further to the hon. Gentleman’s question last week, I raised this issue with Ministers at the Department for Transport, who will write to him shortly. I can confirm that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is considering all responses to the specific questions that were asked. Ministers will decide on a way forward very soon.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

During Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Opposition levelled the accusation that large numbers of people had not registered for further education colleges this year as a result of the abolition of education maintenance allowance. As it happens, I spoke last week to the principal of the excellent Gloucestershire college in my constituency. He told me that it was true that registrations had fallen sharply this year, but his research had shown that that was the result of a substantial increase in the number of pupils staying on for sixth form at schools. He was dealing with the EMA issue using a judicious combination of the Government’s new 16 to 19 bursary fund and the college’s subsidy. Will the Leader of the House ask an education Minister to research this issue and confirm whether the accusation was inaccurate?

[Sir George Young]

The bursary fund will give £400 more than was available under EMA to the most vulnerable students. It is worth reminding the House that EMA was paid to 45% of 16 to 18-year-olds in further education or training. Only one in 10 of those people said it was necessary for their continued participation, so there was a lot of dead-weight in EMA. The new arrangements are much more realistically targeted, and those in the greatest need are getting more than they would have received under EMA.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister is in Cairo today making an announcement about £5 million of investment. With 49 people chasing every job vacancy in my constituency, 899 people under threat of redundancy at BAE Systems at Brough, and only two companies benefiting from the regional growth fund over the past 16 months, may we please have a debate in which the Deputy Prime Minister can announce to the House what investment he can offer to boost the economy in Yorkshire?

[Sir George Young]

I hope that the hon. Lady did not imply that the assistance that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced should not be given. I hope that she welcomes the increase in the budget of the Department for International Development. We had a debate on the economy last week in which there was an opportunity to raise these issues. She knows what we are doing through the Work programme, which is the most ambitious programme to get people back to work that we have ever seen. I hope that she will support the initiatives that will bring hope to people in her constituency.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Following Monday’s short debate on Members’ pensions, does the Leader of the House plan to make a statement about when he intends to sign the order transferring responsibility for our pensions to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for ever?

[Sir George Young]

I have signed the commencement order following the unanimous decision of the House on Monday to transfer responsibility for pensions to IPSA. IPSA now has responsibility for pensions, allowances and pay, and I think that that is the right place for all those things to be.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Public Bodies Bill has significant implications for Wales, and not least for the future of S4C. Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that the Government are riding roughshod over the concerns that remain by leaving only 24 hours to table amendments? They have made these changes in the full knowledge that most Welsh Members are at the Welsh Grand Committee in Wrexham and are unable to protest here today?

[Sir George Young]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has had two weeks in which to table amendments since the Bill came out of Committee. Only one amendment has been tabled. There is still adequate time for him to table amendments so that they can be considered on Tuesday.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Although I will defend for ever people’s right to protest and demonstrate peacefully, the growing encampment outside St Paul’s cathedral has residents who are clearly not available for work and should not be eligible for state benefits. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what action the Government are taking to withdraw those benefits from people who are resident there?

[Sir George Young]

Everyone receiving benefits on the basis of unemployment, including people outside St Paul’s, is required to be available for, and actively seek, work. They must show that they meet those conditions when they sign on. If they cannot do that and have no good reason for failing to comply, they face a complete loss of benefit.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

There is ongoing concern in the House about the implications of the loss or misplacement of private documents in public places by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin). So that we can assess accurately the scale of the problem that we face, may we have a debate on the literacy levels of tramps in public parks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

Royal parks, yes.

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that an appropriate rebuke was administered and I am sure there will be no repetition of the incident.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Tomorrow I will meet an international development charity in my constituency called Cord, which has been doing fantastic work over the past 40 years in conflict-affected and fragile states such as Chad and Cambodia. Will it be possible to provide Government time for a debate on the work of our international development charities in the UK and how we can support them further?

[Sir George Young]

I support the work that Cord is doing not just in the countries that my hon. Friend mentioned but in Burundi, where it is helping those affected by HIV. I know that many such organisations are supported by the Department for International Development, which has a particular fund for such initiatives. I would welcome such a debate, but I am afraid I cannot promise one in the very near future.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Next Tuesday, hundreds of young people and youth workers will lobby Parliament to save their youth services. Youth work is en route to being the first public service to disappear completely, and indeed in a number of places it already has. Please may we have an urgent debate in Government time on the disappearance of youth services?

[Sir George Young]

The youth service is an important service provided by county councils, and it is up to them to decide which of the resources that have been made available to them to put into it. Of course Ministers will be happy to respond to a lobby, but decisions on resource priorities are made by locally elected authorities.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

In my constituency we have a lot of manufacturing and engineering to celebrate, especially in the small and medium enterprise sector, but there would be more if we could just encourage banks to lend a little more to those firms. May we have some assurance that the credit easing that we are about to have really will reach those firms in a meaningful way?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right. Ever since the 1930s we have had the so-called Macmillan gap, which is the absence of secure capital funding for small and medium-sized enterprises. Other countries, such as the US, have bonds that are available to small companies. Credit easing, more details of which will be available in the autumn statement, has as its objective not just helping SMEs to provide growth and employment but creating a new market in capital for them by possibly generating a new market in bonds.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Six hundred and fifty young people from all parts of the world were stunned by the sudden closure of the TASMAC London business school. Many of them had been asked to pay up front their fees not just for one year but for the full three years, and the company has now sought to go into liquidation. I have asked for an urgent meeting with the Minister for Immigration, because the Home Office insists that those young people have only 60 days to find a new course, pay new fees and establish their credibility as students in this country again. They have been victims of what many believe to be a serious fraud, and the Government need to treat them as such. Will the Leader of the House ensure that that will be done?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will support the Home Office’s work to close down bogus colleges. I have great sympathy with those who find themselves in the position he describes, and I will contact my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to see whether there is any flexibility in the situation.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate, or an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Education, on schools’ capital funding? On the one hand the Secretary of State is supporting the setting up of a free school in Runcorn, but on the other many schools in Runcorn and Halton need capital investment, particularly the outstanding Heath school. That would have been taken care of under the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme. May we have an urgent statement on the schools capital project?

[Sir George Young]

We had questions to Department for Education Ministers earlier this week. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was able to take part. I will certainly raise the issue with the Secretary of State and see whether we can make any progress.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Leader of the House and colleagues, because 45 Back Benchers got in in 41 minutes. It was great economy by Back and Front Benchers alike.

Cabinet Secretary Report (Government Response)

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Cabinet Secretary’s report on the allegations against my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). In the interests of transparency, the Prime Minister published the report in full yesterday afternoon and copies were made available to Members immediately after publication. The Government have come to the House at the earliest appropriate moment following the report’s publication. It is not usual for the Government to make an oral statement following the resignation of a Minister. However, given the wider implications of the Cabinet Secretary’s report, it is right that the House has an opportunity to consider the Government’s response.

Before coming to the report, I would like first to set out to the House the changes to the regulations governing Ministers which this Government have already introduced. In May 2010, the Prime Minister published a new ministerial code and committed the Government to an unprecedented level of transparency. The Government are publishing on a quarterly basis details of all Ministers’ meetings with external organisations, including lobbyists, and including meetings with senior media executives; all hospitality received by Ministers; all gifts given and received by Ministers over £140; all Ministers’ visits overseas; contracts over £25,000; special advisers’ salaries over £58,200, and estimated pay bill; special advisers’ gifts and hospitality received; spend on Government procurement cards over £500; and senior officials’ hospitality expenses and meetings with external organisations.

The Prime Minister also significantly tightened the rules regulating former Ministers when they leave office. Former Ministers are now barred from lobbying Government for two years, as well as having to get the advice of the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments for any appointments or employment they wish to take up for a period of two years after leaving office, and the code makes it clear that former Ministers must abide by the advice of the Committee.

Turning now to the matter in hand, following speculation in the media my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset requested that the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence investigate the allegations. The Prime Minister then asked the Cabinet Secretary to establish the facts of the case in relation to allegations in the context of the ministerial code. The interim report prepared by the permanent secretary found that

“there are areas where the current guidance on propriety and the management of Ministerial Private Offices needs to be strengthened”.

As the ministerial code makes clear, it is the Prime Minister’s duty to enforce the ministerial code, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has therefore acted at all times in accord with the proper process.

Last week, my right hon. Friend resigned as Defence Secretary. As he said in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister:

“I mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred”.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted my right hon. Friend’s resignation from Government and his reasons for resigning while making it clear that he viewed him as a superb Defence Secretary, who had implemented fundamental changes that will help to ensure that our armed forces are fully equipped to meet the challenges of the modern era—and I wholeheartedly endorse that view.

The report by the Cabinet Secretary confirms that my right hon. Friend did indeed breach the ministerial code. The ministerial code requires Ministers to ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise. My right hon. Friend’s actions constituted a clear breach of the ministerial code which he has already acknowledged. However, as recognised in the Cabinet Secretary’s report:

“Dr Fox has stated to Parliament Mr Werritty had no access to classified documents and was not briefed on classified matters. There is nothing in the evidence we have taken to contradict this.”

The report also says that

“there is no evidence from this review that casts doubt on Dr Fox’s statement to Parliament that public funds were not misused”

or

“that Dr Fox gained financially in any way from this relationship”.

The permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence has already accepted that there should have been much tighter procedures within the Department and is taking steps to strengthen them to ensure that the ministerial code is properly adhered to.

The Cabinet Secretary’s report concludes that my right hon. Friend’s close and visible association with Mr Werritty in the UK and overseas, and the latter’s use of misleading business cards, has fuelled a general impression that Mr Werritty spoke on behalf of the UK Government. The risks of my right hon. Friend’s associations with Mr Werritty were raised with him by both his private office and the permanent secretary. My right hon. Friend took action in respect of business cards, but clearly made a judgment that his contact with Mr Werritty should continue. This may have been a reasonable judgment had the contacts been minimal and purely personal and had not involved Mr Werritty’s frequent attendance at meetings in the MOD main building and on overseas visits. The damage arose because the frequency, range and extent of the contacts were not regulated as well as they should have been, and that was exacerbated by the fact that the Department was not made aware of all the various contacts.

The Cabinet Secretary also concluded that the links and a lack of clarity in the roles meant that the donations given to Mr Werritty could give rise to the perception of a conflict of interests. He went on to say that there was an inappropriate blurring of the lines between official and personal relationships. Mr Werritty should not have been provided with access to my right hon. Friend’s diary and itinerary. Nor should he have been allowed to participate in the social elements of the then Defence Secretary’s overseas trips in a way that might have given rise to the impression that he was part of the official party. He should not have had meetings in the MOD with such frequency, as that access may have provided others with a belief that Mr Werritty was speaking for Government and was part of an official entourage. That impression was, of course, reinforced by the business cards that Mr Werritty provided to people.

The Cabinet Secretary has recommended further strengthening of procedures across Government. There are five specific recommendations in his report and it is worth setting those out in full. The first is:

“Where discussions take place with external organisations which raise substantive issues relating to departmental decisions or contracts and where an official is not present Ministers should inform their department.”

The second is:

“On Ministerial visits, whether in the UK or abroad, departments should make sure there is no confusion about who is and is not a member of the Ministerial party”,

and the third states:

“Officials should accompany Ministers to all official visits and meetings overseas at which it is expected that official matters may be raised, and should seek guidance from the FCO if there is any uncertainty about the status of such meetings or the attendance of non-officials at them.”

The fourth is:

“Permanent Secretaries should discuss with Ministers at the time of their appointment and regularly thereafter whether any acquaintances or advisers have contractual relationships with the department or are involved in policy development. The Minister and the Permanent Secretary should take action as necessary to ensure there can be no actual or perceived conflict of interest in line with the principles of the Ministerial Code.”

Finally:

“Permanent Secretaries should take responsibility for ensuring departmental procedures are followed, and for raising any concerns with Ministers, advising the Cabinet Secretary and ultimately the Prime Minister where such concerns are not resolved.”

The Prime Minister has accepted those recommendations in full and the Cabinet Secretary is writing to permanent secretaries today to set out the processes that now need to be followed.

Finally, I will turn briefly to wider action that the Government already intend to take to ensure greater transparency between Ministers and external organisations. The coalition agreement committed us to regulating lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, ensuring even greater transparency. It is worth noting from the Cabinet Secretary’s report that:

“Whilst Mr Werritty was not a lobbyist, the Government’s commitment to consult on a statutory register of lobbyists will bring further transparency to this area.”

We intend to produce a consultative document setting out our proposals next month, with an aim of legislating next year. This work is being taken forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House.

At the end of the last Parliament, public trust in Parliament was at an unprecedented low. This Government are committed to working to rebuild confidence in our political and democratic institutions and we will continue to put in place any measure necessary to ensure that the highest standards rightly expected of our elected representatives are met.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, but what a condemnation it was of the way in which government is being run in this country. It is a matter of deep regret that the Prime Minister has chosen not to deal with this statement himself. It is the Prime Minister and not the Leader of the House who is the guardian of the ministerial code, and who has the final say on who is fit to be in his Government. Today, he has ducked those responsibilities.

When news of the potential wrongdoing at the Ministry of Defence first surfaced, the former Secretary of State for Defence announced an inquiry into himself, but only after he had called the allegations “baseless”. As the revelations mounted daily, the Prime Minister belatedly announced this limited inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary. By then, it was apparent to everyone that the ministerial code had been breached. The Secretary of State admitted as much. Why then did the Prime Minister not refer this case to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Philip Mawer?

What we have today is a far cry from such a full, independent, external inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary has been forced to rely on the word of Adam Werritty and the former Defence Secretary, whose explanations have repeatedly unravelled at the first hint of scrutiny. This report merely scratches the surface of potential misconduct in government. Consequently, it raises more questions than it answers.

Even in its narrow and limited form, the Cabinet Secretary’s report is damning. It finds the former Defence Secretary’s conduct

“not appropriate and not acceptable”.

It reveals, in stark detail, multiple breaches of the ministerial code. The former Defence Secretary has knowingly circumvented the long-established rules that are in place to prevent conflicts of interest from arising. The report shows that wealthy individuals funded Adam Werritty. He was, in effect, a privately funded special adviser. The former Secretary of State’s shadow political operation routinely undermined our civil service structures and their accountability. The report fails to expose the full facts about the money trail. There is no investigation into the benefits that Adam Werritty received. There is no full disclosure of his funders and the purpose behind the donations. Given the Prime Minister’s failure to answer this question earlier today, can the Leader of the House give the House a categorical assurance that no similar practices are taking place anywhere else in this Government?

I turn now to the details of the report. We need answers on the following issues. The role of the Sri Lanka Development Trust is not considered in the report. Mr Werritty’s presence in Iran, Washington and Israel remains unexplained. We do not know whether Mr Werritty profited from his association with the former Defence Secretary, although we do know about the five-star nature of his taste in flights and hotels. We do not know what those secretive donors, who were in effect Mr Werritty’s paymasters, were promised for their money, nor indeed if they got it. We do not know whether the former Defence Secretary commissioned any work from the MOD as a result of the offline and irregular meetings brokered by Mr Werritty. We do not know which other Ministers and senior staff have met Mr Werritty, because the Prime Minister has refused to publish a full list. That is totally unacceptable. A full list must be published. In order to deal with all those issues, will the Leader of the House agree that further investigation is both essential and urgent?

Will the Leader of the House also tell the House whether he has initiated an inquiry into the use by the former Defence Secretary of his parliamentary office to run Atlantic Bridge as a charity, and whether he is satisfied that that was proper under parliamentary rules? Some of the key funders of Atlantic Bridge were the key funders of Adam Werritty. They are also the key funders of the Conservative party. The links are complex, but they are deep and well-established.

We learned yesterday of the meeting between Adam Werritty and two members of the existing Defence team. They must give the House a full explanation of the details of those meetings and their connections to Adam Werritty.

We also learned in the report that the risks of the former Defence Secretary’s association with Mr Werritty were raised with him by his private office, the permanent secretary, a former permanent secretary and a former Chief of the Defence Staff. He chose to ignore those warnings. Why was he allowed to make that choice? What did the permanent secretary at the MOD then do? Were any of those concerns raised with the Cabinet Secretary and, if so, did the Cabinet Secretary raise them with the Prime Minister? Why was this situation allowed to continue for so long? Why was the former Defence Secretary allowed to treat the ministerial code as if it was an optional extra?

The report recommends that senior civil servants have greater oversight of ministerial behaviour. Yet the fact remains that it is Ministers who are responsible for their own conduct and the Prime Minister who is the guardian of the ministerial code. He is expected to enforce it, not allow it to be broken multiple times.

Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to end the

“cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money”.

That promise has now been broken. This scandal has only damaged public confidence in the Government further. Meetings without civil servants; money off the books; luxury social visits in between visits to our brave servicemen and women; and today, the Prime Minister’s contempt on the matter was revealed. Simply saying that the Defence Secretary has resigned is not good enough. The Government need to take responsibility for this self-inflicted crisis. The House needs answers to the unanswered questions, or people will only conclude that this Government have something to hide.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not take points of order in the middle of statements, or at any time in statements, only afterwards.

[Sir George Young]

I will go through the issues that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) raised. No Prime Minister has ever made a statement to the House following the resignation of a Minister. In circumstances such as these, when there has been a report on a breach of the code, there has normally been a written ministerial statement. There has never before been an oral statement in circumstances such as these, but this Government have come to the Dispatch Box at the earliest stage, having made a written ministerial statement and set out our proposals.

The hon. Lady said that the Cabinet Secretary or the Prime Minister had not followed due process. If she looks at paragraph 1.3 of the ministerial code, she will see that it states:

“If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, he will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.”

That is exactly what he has done. We have established that there has been a breach of the code, the Secretary of State has resigned and we have a comprehensive report identifying the breaches and making recommendations for the future. It is not a superficial report; it is a comprehensive piece of work by the Cabinet Secretary, and the House should be grateful for it.

I turn to the specific questions that the hon. Lady asked. Other Ministers are perfectly happy to make it clear whether they have met Mr Werritty. On whether similar practices are going on throughout Government, if she has any evidence I would like her to bring it forward. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must not chunter or, worse still, yell at the Leader of the House. He must be heard.

[Sir George Young]

It is worth noting that paragraph 11 of the Cabinet Secretary’s report states:

“I am of the view that this is an issue which was specific to Dr Fox.”

The hon. Member for Wallasey raised a number of other issues, some of which are for other bodies to deal with. If she looks at paragraph 1 of the Cabinet Secretary’s report, she will see that it states:

“Since then, more allegations about Dr Fox’s conduct have arisen many of which will be the responsibility of others to answer, including the Electoral Commission which regulates political parties and their funding.”

She also asked a specific question on a matter that is the responsibility of the Charity Commission.

The hon. Lady then asked what went wrong in the Ministry of Defence. If she reads the report, she will see that what went wrong was that the permanent secretary did not raise the issue with the Cabinet Secretary, who would then have raised it with the Prime Minister. There is a specific recommendation in the report that that situation should not happen again, and that if there are any future instances, the permanent secretary should notify the Cabinet Secretary, who will notify the Prime Minister.

I say very gently to the hon. Lady that her party is not negotiating from a position of strength on this issue. I think what the public want is a serious debate about what went wrong, and they want Members on both sides of the House to join together in driving up standards in public life.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Leader of the House’s statement. In it, he said that senior civil servants “accepted that there should have been much tighter procedures within the Department”. Will he say specifically what is wrong with existing procedures, and what steps he is taking to ensure that the failing lies with those procedures rather than with the action or inaction of the civil servants themselves?

[Sir George Young]

I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement. What went wrong was that the permanent secretary, having raised the matter with the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State having persisted in the behaviour that she found disturbing, did not take further action. The matter should have been escalated to the Cabinet Secretary, who would then have notified the Prime Minister. A specific recommendation is going out to all permanent secretaries today that should there be a recurrence in future, it should be escalated. Had that happened in this case, the issue probably would have been addressed at a much earlier stage.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I feel sorry for the Leader of the House for his being forced to make this statement because the Prime Minister does not have the gumption to do so.

Given that it was quite clear on day one of this scandal to anybody who has bothered to read the ministerial code that the Minister in question not only broke it but drove a coach and horses through it, why the dither and delay from the Prime Minister? Does that not show yet again that we have a Prime Minister who does not do detail and does not have a clue what is going on in the rest of his Government?

[Sir George Young]

If I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that is way over the top. When Lord Mandelson resigned not once but twice, the Prime Minister did not come to the House to make a statement. In this case there is a statement from a Minister on the action that we propose to take to stop any recurrence. Far from the Prime Minister dithering or delaying, he asked for something to be on his desk on Monday. He then asked the Cabinet Secretary to produce a report. Out of decency and fair play, the Prime Minister decided to wait until the report was available rather than taking precipitate action. That is not dither and delay; that is fair play.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend not think it rather strange that some of those who are campaigning hard for a register of lobbyists did nothing over the past 13 years and created a lobbyists’ free-for-all? Does he not also think that it is strange for the Labour party, which found itself in the Bernie Ecclestone lobbying scandal, to now pretend it is Mother Teresa?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend reminds the House that, as I said a moment ago, the Opposition are not negotiating from a position of strength. It is indeed the case that from 1997 to last year, no action was taken to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists. When the Public Administration Committee recommended that in 2009, the Labour Government specifically rejected it, and they voted against other measures that would have promoted transparency, so I do not think we have any lessons to learn on this matter from Labour Members.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Is Mr Werritty the only unofficial representative acting on behalf of a Cabinet Minister or a Minister of State?

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence—[Hon. Members: “Ah.”] I think people should be careful before making general allegations without any specific evidence at all. This is a—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the House, but may I say to the House that he is a person of unfailing courtesy? I think that would be accepted on both sides of the House. He does not yell at other Members, and—[Interruption.] Order. And other Members should not yell at him.

[Sir George Young]

I quoted a passage from paragraph 11 of the Cabinet Secretary’s report, in which he stated that he believed the situation was “specific to Dr Fox”. I do not think there is any evidence at all that Mr Werritty had a similar relationship with any other Minister in the Government. If the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) has any evidence of any irregularity, I think he should put it forward and substantiate what he has said.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I appreciate the Leader of the House’s point about a register of lobbyists, and I add my voice to the call for a statutory register. Does he find it surprising to hear some of the comments from the Opposition, given that under the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), union officials were regularly in No. 10 unofficially attending meetings?

[Sir George Young]

I agree with my hon. Friend that this should not become part of the political currency between the two parties. On the issue of lobbying, as I think he knows, we plan to publish a consultation document early next month on our proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists, with a view to legislating next year.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s seemingly all-encompassing catchment in the designation of lobbyists, but I would like assurance on two points. First, will he confirm that the ultimate funding of all lobbyists, think-tanks and all others who seek to exert influence will be revealed on an open public register that is readily accessible and tell us what the sanctions will be if that is not done? Secondly, since all those who seek to manipulate always want to escape detection, how will he deal with the admittedly difficult situation in which formal meetings suddenly morph into informal meetings where significant commitments might be made but remain undetected?

[Sir George Young]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The answer to the first section of his question is yes, that is exactly what we have in mind: an open, accessible register of statutory lobbyists. On the other issues, we propose to consult on what exactly a lobbyist is. I think the definition should embrace what people outside generally believe to be lobbying and should be comprehensive. On the question of what activity is then caught, we would be very grateful for his views during the consultation process.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I welcome the Leader of the House’s statement? The Select Committee on Public Administration is looking into how we can do more to fix broken politics. I particularly congratulate him on ending the sofa government that we saw in the past as well as the tidal wave of sleaze, and I urge him to take action on the revolving door that still persists for former Ministers of this House.

[Sir George Young]

The revolving door is an issue I addressed in my statement and we are tightening up the process for it. I am delighted to hear that the Public Administration Committee, which originally proposed the statutory register in its report, is thinking of returning to this issue and I hope that it will inform the Bill when it is introduced.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

On 10 October, I asked the then Defence Secretary when he was first made aware of concerns by his permanent secretary. He said that

“I was not aware of any direct approach from them. The first direct approach I can remember was when my current permanent secretary came to me in August”.—[Official Report, 10 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 30.]

That leads to two questions. Either the then Defence Secretary misled the House and he was made aware of that before then or the previous permanent secretary has some serious questions to answer. These things have been going on since he took office and for more than a year concerns have arisen and nobody has done anything. The civil service must look at its own conduct in how it makes people aware when things go wrong.

[Sir George Young]

I think it is clear from the report that things did go wrong in the Ministry of Defence. That was accepted in the permanent secretary’s initial report. Procedures were not followed and we are learning from that and ensuring that there is no recurrence.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has resigned and that the Cabinet Secretary’s report could not be clearer that there was no breach of national security and that my right hon. Friend did not gain financially from any of these arrangements? Is not the most important thing now for the debate to move on? We have important operations in Libya and Afghanistan that we must focus on in the national interest.

[Sir George Young]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have commissioned a report, we have found out what went wrong, we have made recommendations to put it right and we have learned the lessons. I agree that we should now move on.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Both in questions to the Prime Minister and during this statement today, the question of whether other Ministers have behaved in a similar manner has been raised. The Leader of the House has made it clear that anyone who wants to make allegations should do so. I do not think that people are making allegations—they are raising the general worry that the rest of the population of this country feels. If someone as experienced as the former Secretary of State allowed this to go on, thinking that it was reasonable, surely it is possible that other Ministers, equally unwittingly, might be doing the same thing. Would it not benefit us all if the Cabinet Secretary were to look into all these things to ensure that there is not any other concern?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but in the last Parliament a number of Ministers from his party had to resign. We never made any suggestion that because one Minister had broken the code, all Ministers had broken the code, and it is important that similar accusations should not be made in this Parliament.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The trouble with the idea of trying to move on is that we are seeing a pretty shabby pattern in which the Prime Minister is given evidence, refuses to look at it but holds on for dear life to as many of his friends as he can. It happened with Coulson and it has happened again now. Now there is evidence about the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and his apparent adviser, Miriam Maes. Will there be an investigation into that, too?

[Sir George Young]

On the first point, to say that the Prime Minister refused to look at the evidence is simply absurd as he looked at it, published it and has acted on it. As for the issues concerning the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the matter has been resolved. The person concerned is an adviser to the Department and not to a Minister.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House aware that some good has come out of all this, as it has shown up the whole murky world of various shady and dubious lobbyists and various individuals who have contributed heavily to the Tory party? One thing is absolutely clear: the Tory party has not changed from last time it was in office.

[Sir George Young]

It would be easier to take the hon. Gentleman seriously on this had he not voted against a specific amendment to promote transparency in lobbying.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, the Leader of the House said—if I heard him correctly—that other Ministers would be perfectly happy to reveal whether they had meetings with Mr Werritty. Will he therefore tell the House when we will get a full and comprehensive list of all meetings between Ministers and Mr Werritty and whether it will extend to senior officials, too?

[Sir George Young]

It has already been put in the public domain for a number of Government Departments. It will be put in the public domain by the rest of the Departments very shortly.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

How many Government Front-Bench Members have received donations from Pargav Ltd and will the Leader of the House investigate that? May I urge on him caution about the defence of bringing forward evidence? The last time that was used was on the 10th of this month and the former Secretary of State subsequently resigned, having used that very defence.

[Sir George Young]

Any donations that Ministers or any Members of the House have received from a company such as Pargav have to be put in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Government are adopting the procedure of coming forward today and making a statement, which is a departure from previous practice and is to be welcomed. One of the recommendations of the report is that greater responsibility should be given to permanent secretaries to ensure that departmental procedures are followed, yet in this case the permanent secretary at the MOD has already accepted that there should have been much tighter procedures within the Department. What confidence can the public have, given the obvious failings within the Department at that senior level?

[Sir George Young]

The recommendations apply not just to the permanent secretary but, for example, to the private office as well. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for this new procedure and I hope that it is one that I do not have to follow too often.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

How is what the Leader of the House has said about conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest and the ministerial code be consistent with the approach the Government have taken in the case of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who has been relieved of those areas of his portfolio where such a conflict might occur?

[Sir George Young]

That matter has been dealt with by the Cabinet Secretary.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House said in his statement that Mr Werritty was not a lobbyist. How then will the register and the reforms that he proposes affect the behaviour of someone like Mr Werritty?

[Sir George Young]

I did not say that I did not think that he was a lobbyist but that the Cabinet Secretary did not think that he was a lobbyist. When we publish the consultation paper next month, we will be open to consultation on what a lobbyist is. In the view of many people, the definition should include Mr Werritty.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Leaving political differences aside, it is a genuine shame that one of the few members of the Government from an ordinary background has been forced to resign. Will the Leader of the House tell us how many donations were solicited by the former Defence Secretary, how much those donations were valued at and why he solicited them?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), but he was not forced to resign. He chose to resign last Friday and set out the reasons for that in his letter.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is it not the prime duty of the Leader of the House to try to restore public faith and confidence in this institution? We handled the expenses scandal in an atrocious way that damaged us greatly. Would it not be a terrible mistake if we ignored the real abuses of the revolving door and of lobbying and went ahead and indulged in a process of blaming each other? If we are going to be successful in convincing the public, we must follow the Public Administration Committee. Otherwise, the public will look at this debate today and say, “Same old MPs, same old sleaze.”

[Sir George Young]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s question will be the last. On that consensual note, I hope we can draw these exchanges to a close.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House reasserts its view that the salaries, pensions and expenses scheme for hon. Members ought to be determined independently of this House; accordingly invites the Leader of the House to make an order commencing those provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 which transfer responsibility for the pensions of hon. Members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the Final Report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness; believes that IPSA should introduce, by 2015, a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings and their subsequent application to other public service pension schemes; recognises the case for an increase in pension contributions made in Lord Hutton’s interim report; and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.

[Mr Speaker]

I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

[Sir George Young]

Should the House agree to this motion, we will have completed the transition to a wholly independent system for setting and administering MPs’ remuneration. The first and most pressing task was to establish a transparent new expenses scheme in time for the beginning of this Parliament. That was achieved, albeit not without some issues about the operation of the scheme, which have been aired on other occasions. Since May this year, responsibility for setting MPs’ pay has also rested with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; under the relevant legislation, MPs will not vote on their own pay again. Today’s debate on MPs’ pensions represents the final piece of the jigsaw. Once the powers in relation to pensions have been transferred to IPSA, it will have responsibility for looking in the round at the whole remuneration package for Members of Parliament.

The motion before us should not come as a surprise to the House.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman says this is the last piece of the IPSA jigsaw. Is he satisfied that all the other pieces of the jigsaw are perfectly placed?

[Sir George Young]

I know that my hon. Friend is not so satisfied. He will know that a Committee of the House is looking into the legislation and that there is a committee that liaises between this House and IPSA. I think that the latter is aware of his views on the improvements that need to be made to the scheme. This motion relates not to the allowances that, I believe, are his preoccupation but to pensions.

Before we rose for the summer recess, I set out the Government’s approach to hon. Members’ pensions in a written ministerial statement, and I also published the motion we are debating. Should the House agree to support the motion, we will have protected the principle that MPs’ remuneration should be independently assessed and determined and demonstrated to our constituents that we understand that Parliament must not be insulated from the fiscal circumstances affecting the rest of the country.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Leader of the House said that we will never vote again on these matters. Does that mean that the House will not vote the money needed to pay these salaries? What will be done about the overall budget for the costs of government and Parliament, which I thought was of interest to the Government?

[Sir George Young]

The position is exactly as I said: under legislation passed by the House we will not vote on our own pay, which IPSA will determine independently. It will have the authority to do that and, without primary legislation, which the House would have to agree, its determination will be the last word.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we get this clear? Some of us will be rather surprised to hear that we will never again vote on our salaries, because Ministers have told us that before but we have always been persuaded to vote again on them.

[Sir George Young]

Primary legislation precludes that. Were the Government to be minded to change that, they would have to persuade the House to reintroduce primary legislation overturning the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which deals with IPSA, and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which have taken the matter out of our control, so there is no longer a parallel with the previous position.

[Mr Redwood]

I understand the narrow point about rates of pay, but my question is rather different: are the coalition Government still interested in the overall costs of Parliament and of MPs? Will we vote through the money, or will somebody else do that?

[Sir George Young]

It would be quite wrong to say that, in principle, our pay should be determined by IPSA but to try, by the back door, to circumscribe that decision by voting down the money it had determined should be paid as our salaries. That would not be an independent determination of our salaries.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I will give way to the chairman of the trustees.

[Mr Donohoe]

May I ask why the motion does exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman. The motion transfers responsibility for determining MPs’ pensions to IPSA and delivers a commitment made in the Parliamentary Standards Act and the CRAG Act, which I believe were passed without dissent in the previous Parliament.

[Mr Donohoe]

The second part of the motion does the exact opposite. The Leader of the House is trying to suggest that the independent IPSA should take on board what he proposes in the motion, which is that the contributions made by Members of Parliament should increase in line with those of people in the public sector.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his point. If he looks at the legislation, he will see that he and the House are statutory consultees for IPSA: if it wishes to make any changes to the scheme, it is obliged to consult the trustees, the Senior Salaries Review Body and anyone who might be affected, which includes all of us in this Chamber. We therefore have some locus in the consultation. The second part of the motion expresses a view on behalf of the House, which we are entitled to do under the legislation. It is right that Members make it clear to their constituents that they expect to be treated no differently from others in the public sector in the determination of their pension contributions.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I would like to make a bit of progress before I give way.

It is accepted by Members on both sides of the House that the UK faces an unsustainable structural deficit that must be brought down. The Government have been forced, as any Government would be, to take difficult decisions across the public sector that have consequences for hon. Members. In March, the House agreed that Members’ salaries should be frozen this year in line with the two-year pay freeze on public sector workers earning more than £21,000. After that debate, I commenced the relevant parts of the CRAG Act, formally transferring power to IPSA. I am sure that the chairman of the trustees and the House will recognise the comparison of that procedure and the one we are debating this afternoon—we are transferring responsibility while at the same time expressing a view.

Before the election, all parties publicly agreed that the current final salary terms of the parliamentary pension scheme should be brought to an end. However, as with other public service pension reform, changes will not be made retrospectively, nor will they have an impact on past benefits—an assurance that is as important to Members of the House as it is to those in other public sector schemes.

Looking ahead to a future scheme, the coalition agreement committed us to consult IPSA on moving from the final salary arrangements. In June last year, the Government established the independent public service pensions commission, chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness, to make recommendations on how to put public service pensions on a sustainable footing. Although the Hutton report did not include hon. Members within its scope of inquiry, it was immediately apparent that reform of the parliamentary pension scheme must be tackled in the light of the commission’s findings and their subsequent application to other public service schemes. I do not believe that there is any case for our scheme being treated differently from other public service schemes. Indeed, there would be justifiable disbelief if it were.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I accept that there is much to be said about our needing to set the public an example, particularly given the reforms we are trying to make to public sector schemes, but unlike many public sector schemes the parliamentary scheme is—or is near to being—fully funded and the contributions are rather larger. Will the Leader of the House go into more detail on the nature of the parliamentary scheme, which is slightly misunderstood in much of the press coverage?

[Sir George Young]

The contributions for those subscribing at one fortieth are indeed higher than those for many elsewhere in the public sector, but so are the benefits. The Exchequer contribution, at some 28%, is also substantially higher than for other public sector schemes. One needs to consider it in the round when one comes to a judgment about the appropriate treatment of the scheme.

Today’s motion supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the final report of the independent public service pensions commission.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Some of us strongly support the principle behind my right hon. Friend’s motion, but our dilemma is that once again IPSA is acting as administrator and as the body that sets the rates—an arrangement that one does not often find anywhere else. If the committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) finds that there should be some division between the administration of our pay, pensions, allowances and so on and the setting of their rates, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that the motion, if passed, will not be the final word on the matter?

[Sir George Young]

The administration will be performed by the trustees; there is no change in that. The contribution rates and ultimately the shape of the scheme will be determined by IPSA, which will set the rules. The trustees will continue to administer the scheme, with some slight change in their membership to reflect IPSA’s new involvement.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Sir George Young]

If I may, I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way.

The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) suggests that the parts of the motion relating to the Hutton review should be removed. Its implication is that our scheme should not be treated the same as other public sector schemes, and I do not think our constituents would welcome such an interpretation.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On what basis does my right hon. Friend think that is a fair assessment of my amendment, which seeks to put in the motion the fact that IPSA is independent and should reach its own judgment? That is the effect of my amendment and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend seeks to misrepresent its purpose.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend’s amendment would delete the following words:

“and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.”

It is perfectly legitimate to say that one can deduce that he does not want Members’ pension schemes to reflect other public service schemes.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

Let me make a bit more progress and then I will give way.

The motion also states that

“IPSA should introduce…a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings”

by 2015. That is a similar timetable to that for the rest of the public service. However, as with other public service pension reform, changes should neither be retrospectively made nor have an impact on past benefits.

[Mr Love]

In his final report, Lord Hutton spoke warmly about the continuation of defined benefit schemes in the public sector. Is the Leader of the House fully aware of that, and does he support that recommendation?

[Sir George Young]

Indeed; the Government welcomed Lord Hutton’s report, including the interim report, the final report and the budget. He made it clear that he wanted to retain a defined benefit scheme, and on that basis negotiations are continuing. IPSA will be mindful of that recommendation by Hutton—and, indeed, of the hon. Gentleman’s views.

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act already provides full protection for pension benefits already earned, including a link to the salary on leaving the scheme, so any new scheme would apply only to future service. Furthermore, the legislation includes comprehensive provisions requiring IPSA to consult widely before making any changes to parliamentary pensions.

[Bob Russell]

rose—

[Sir George Young]

I think I had better give way first to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).

[Mr Anderson]

I was pleased to sign amendment (a), but I want to make it clear that my case is very different from what the Leader of the House described. I believe that we are in exactly the same boat as every other public sector worker in the country and that we should be treated the same. We should be allowed, with our trustees, to negotiate with IPSA as local government pension schemes are being negotiated with their trustees and their employers. It should not be the Government who set the standard for the pensions—it should be the pension schemes.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that paragraph 15 of schedule 6 to the CRAG Act states:

“Before making a scheme under paragraph 12 the IPSA must consult…the trustees of the Fund,”

so there is that opportunity for dialogue.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

I should make it clear that I will support the motion, but something is causing alarm bells to ring. The Leader of the House rightly says that the motion means that the parliamentary scheme will not be better than those for other public sector workers, but will he make it quite clear that nothing in the motion has any implications for the negotiations that are taking place with other public sector schemes?

[Sir George Young]

The motion is purely declaratory, so the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The second half of it expresses a view, on behalf of the House, that we believe we should be treated no better or worse than those in other public sector schemes. It is important that our constituents know that that is our view and that we do not expect to be treated any differently from others in the public sector.

A further development is the increase in pension contribution rates for public service schemes, as already announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The case for public service employees to pay more into their pensions and therefore reduce the burden on the taxpayer was made clearly in Lord Hutton’s interim report, which was published last autumn. The report states:

“In the short term, however, I consider there is also a strong case for looking at some increase in pension contributions for public service employees, to better meet the real costs of providing these pensions, the value of which has risen in recent years with most of these extra costs falling to taxpayers”.

The subsequent statement made by the Chief Secretary made it clear that each scheme would be required to find savings equivalent to a 3.2 percentage point increase, phased in over three years, with scheme-specific discussions to make proposals on how the savings were to be achieved.

If the House accepts the principle that hon. Members should not be out of step with changes that affect other public service schemes, we should also accept that our contributions should rise at the same time. I can therefore confirm that the Government propose to increase contributions to the ministerial scheme, with increases being applied from 1 April next year on a staged basis, and we will consult on that proposal as required by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.

Finally, I shall end where I began: the most important development of which account needs to be taken is the acceptance that MPs’ remuneration should be assessed, determined and administered independently.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there might be concerns over IPSA’s role, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good and that this debate is long overdue? We must all look our public sector constituents in the face every day and justify changing their pensions schemes.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support and for the views she expresses.

There were constraints on IPSA taking over absolutely everything right at the beginning of this Parliament. The priority was allowances, so that was its first commitment, followed by pay. As I have said, this is the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle. We will have then passed over responsibility for the total package by 1 April next year.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Let me make it clear that I support the motion and the thinking that lies behind it, but what will be the role of the trustees between now and 2015, and what will it be after 2015? Will they have any fiduciary responsibility for the new scheme, or will their responsibility be limited to the current scheme?

[Sir George Young]

The trustees will continue to administer the scheme. The chairman of the trustees might want to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. Under our changes, the rules that govern the scheme will no longer be made by the Government or the House; they will be made independently by IPSA. After the process of transfer on 1 April next year, the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees until such time as IPSA makes any change. If it wants to make changes, it must consult the trustees. The motion indicates that the first change should be an increase in the contribution rate. It then suggests that, along with other public sector schemes, a new scheme, perhaps moving from final salary, should be introduced by 2015, but the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees, and I pay tribute to the work they do.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm my understanding that the arrangements being put in place for the trustees, some of which come from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, are in line with best practice for other pension schemes?

[Sir George Young]

Yes; I believe that to be so. There has been no representation on the issue the hon. Lady raises. There are some changes in the composition of the trustees to reflect IPSA’s responsibility, as part of the 2010 Act.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

I propose to conclude.

Independence is a crucial part of the process of restoring trust in Parliament. Any decision to defer the transfer to independence would result in MPs continuing to determine their own remuneration, which the House has firmly rejected. It is not incompatible—this goes back to some of our discussions during the debate—to argue that responsibility for our pensions should be made independent and, by agreeing to the motion today, to send a strong signal about the direction we feel the scheme should take in the light of the application of the Hutton recommendations to other public service schemes.

Subject to today’s debate, I will move as quickly as possible to commence the relevant sections of the CRAG Act, transferring all responsibility for MPs’ pensions to IPSA. Once responsibility for MPs’ pensions has been handed to IPSA, the House will have finally relinquished the power to set the terms of its own remuneration. I hope that that will represent a significant further step in drawing a line under the problems of the past and in helping to rebuild public confidence. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

rose—

[Ms Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is rising, so there may be a different interpretation. I am happy to give way.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady is right. Paragraph 12 of schedule 6, which deals with the MPs’ pension scheme, makes it absolutely clear that it is up to IPSA to devise the scheme. There are rights of consultation, but it is an independent scheme set out by IPSA.

[Ms Eagle]

The question from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that I was answering was about the duties of the trustees. My understanding, from reading the primary legislation, is that it does not impact in any differential way on the legal duties of trustees.

Procedure Committee Reports

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that this is a point of order; I am still somewhat feeling my way in this place. There is another debate this afternoon, which was brought about by the Backbench Business Committee as a consequence of one of the first e-petitions. I might be wrong, but I understand that this debate can carry on until any hour. Judging by the number of colleagues who are standing to speak, it looks as though the second debate will get less time than a Westminster Hall debate. If that is the case and the second debate gets squeezed out, I hope that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, will consider giving it injury time at some point because it is an important debate that affects the constituents of a large number of Members.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House tried to protect the debate in which my hon. Friend has an interest by tabling a motion last night. Sadly, that was blocked by a member of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am very concerned about the time that this debate is taking. I will reduce the time limit on speeches and hopefully, if we have some brevity, we will get to the second debate. The high speed debate is important to this House and people will not understand why we are spending so much time on ourselves and our use of hand-held devices. As important as this is, we need to make progress as quickly as possible.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

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

The business for the week commencing 17 October will be:

Monday 17 October—Motion relating to MPs’ pensions, followed by motion relating to disclosure and publication of documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 18 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 19 October—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on energy prices followed by a debate on individual voter registration. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill.

Thursday 20 October—General debate on national planning policy framework.

Friday 21 October—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 24 October will include:

Monday 24 October—Remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 25 October—Continuation of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 2).

Wednesday 26 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 3).

Thursday 27 October—Business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

For the convenience of the House, I wish to announce the proposed calendar for the coming year. We intend for the House to rise at the close of play on Tuesday 15 November, returning on Monday 21 November, meaning that we will not sit on two days—Wednesday 16 November and Thursday 17 November—as previously planned. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of play on Tuesday 20 December, returning on Tuesday 10 January 2012.

The House will rise for the constituency break at the close of play on Thursday 9 February, returning on Monday 20 February. We will rise for the Easter break at the close of play on Tuesday 27 March, returning on Monday 16 April. We will rise for the Whitsun recess at the close of play on Thursday 24 May, returning on Monday 11 June. The summer recess will start at the close of play on Tuesday 17 July, returning on Monday 3 September. Finally, we will rise for the conference recess at the close of play on Tuesday 18 September, returning on Monday 15 October. All those dates will be put before the House for approval, and the dates for the Queen’s Speech and private Members’ Bill Fridays for the second Session will be announced in the usual way. All dates are subject to the progress of business, and a calendar is now available from the Vote Office.

[Ms Eagle]

May I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, especially for his giving us early notice of the annual calendar? Even if it changes slightly, it is an innovation that I think all Members of all parties will appreciate. May I also take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) as my deputy, and to pay tribute to the work done by my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who even as we speak is wrestling with the intricacies of the local government grant formula in his new shadow Cabinet role? I look forward to shadowing the Leader of the House. I note that he first came to the House in 1974, when I had only just arrived in big school. I hope that I can achieve a triumph of youth over experience on at least a few of these occasions.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised to look at publishing a full list of all the meetings of Ministers and officials with the Defence Secretary’s self-styled adviser Adam Werritty. With further irregularities surfacing by the day, when will this list be published? Following the BBC’s revelations on secretive wealthy donors running a shadow operation at the heart of one of Whitehall’s most sensitive Government Departments, what are the implications for accountability and probity?

With unemployment hitting a 17-year high, youth unemployment at nearly 1 million and the highest levels of joblessness among women for more than 20 years, is it not time that the Government admitted that their economic plan is just not working? Even the Conservative Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee recently described the Government’s action on growth as “piecemeal, contradictory and incoherent”, so it was no surprise to see him being strong-armed round the corner for re-education by the Prime Minister’s spin doctors at the Tory party conference.

Is not the utterly inadequate response from the Government in yesterday’s debate on growth and jobs the clearest proof yet that they are in denial about the plight of millions of people now languishing on the dole? Will the Leader of the House therefore consider bringing forward the autumn statement so that we can take urgent action to implement Labour’s five-point plan on growth and jobs and begin to deal with the soaring unemployment and the waste of potential that it represents.

Speaking of potential, I notice that the Prime Minister yesterday hosted a reception of FTSE 100 companies, exhorting them to promote more women into their boardrooms. With only four women in the entire Cabinet, is this not a case of the Prime Minister telling people to “do as I say, not as I do”? Perhaps if the Prime Minister had more women in his Cabinet he would be spared further embarrassment from some of the men he has in it. And while we are talking about the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, given our debate later today on electronic devices and tweeting from the Chamber, will the Government provide him with urgent training on how best to keep his fingerprints off the increasingly frequent briefings against his Cabinet colleagues?

[Sir George Young]

May I begin by warmly welcoming the new shadow Leader of the House to her post? She has been a Member since 1992 and has held a number of ministerial and shadow ministerial posts as well as serving on Select Committees as a Back Bencher. She is well placed to take on her new responsibilities and help us in our efforts to strengthen the House. I look forward to working with her and her deputy, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), whom we also welcome, but the latter may have to clarify her role. I see from her website that she says:

“Along with the Shadow Speaker of the House, I intend to make sure this government is held to account for its actions right in the heart of Parliament.”

I am not sure whether you, Mr Speaker, will welcome this development and this new position.

Along with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), I pay tribute to the previous shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who had a deep understanding of, and affection for, the House. He will be much missed, as his bravura performances at the Dispatch Box every week were enjoyed on both sides of the House. Indeed, I believe he had to be moved because he risked overshadowing his leader on the Wednesdays. He now shadows my right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary, and he may find that shadow a rather different profile from mine!

I welcomed what the hon. Lady said about the early announcement of the parliamentary calendar. I think that that is in the interests of the House and all who work here. In 2010 we were given the Easter recess dates two weeks before the Easter recess.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will honour the undertaking that he gave the House yesterday on the list of visits to Ministers as soon as the information has been dealt with. As for the other issue that the hon. Lady raised, the Cabinet Secretary is, as she knows, dealing with all outstanding issues and unanswered questions, and will complete his inquiry as soon as he can.

Yesterday’s unemployment figures were grim. We debated the issue at some length yesterday in Opposition time, and the Prime Minister made clear that every job loss was a personal tragedy. We need to do all that we can to get people back to work. Youth unemployment, sadly, has been rising every year since 2004 and, given that it was rising during a period of growth, it will obviously be difficult to get it down during a period of challenging world recession. I will not repeat what the Chancellor said about 360,000 new apprenticeships, new sector-based work academies and the rest. We have had an Opposition day, and we are always ready to arrange another.

As for being in denial, I think that the Opposition are still in denial on the deficit. During the Opposition day debate, the shadow Chancellor could not bring himself to discuss the central Opposition policy that was announced in the Labour leader’s conference speech. Perhaps that is proof that when it comes to constructive policies on the economy, the Government are the producers and the Opposition are the predators.

I will pass on the hon. Lady’s comments about the need for more women in the Cabinet to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

The whole House is waiting with bated breath to hear details of a written statement later today on improved transitional arrangements relating to changes in the women’s state pension age. Government Members have fought very hard for that. Will the Leader of the House please give us some details of what he is expecting?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend and neighbour might have seen the written ministerial statement that has just been published in the name of the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), in which he says that he will

“today table Government amendments to the Pensions Bill”,

which we shall discuss on Tuesday,

“including one that caps the maximum increase in women’s State Pension age at 18 months, relative to the legislated timetable.”

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that announcement.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on whether the funding of a charity or an individual to further the political interest of a Minister constitutes a donation in kind?

[Sir George Young]

That sounds like one of the issues to which I referred in my response to the hon. Member for Wallasey, and which may arise from the ongoing inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary. I honestly think that it makes sense to await the outcome of the inquiry, and in the meantime to allow the Secretary of State for Defence to get on with his job.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

There is real concern about carbon taxation policy among industries that are large users of energy, such as CEMEX, which manufactures cement and is also a large employer in my constituency. May we have a debate on the matter, and on the need to ensure that UK industry remains competitive?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. He will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said from this Dispatch Box that he is anxious to engage in dialogues with intensive users of energy who might be adversely affected by the changes, and who might be put at a competitive disadvantage in relation to other producers in Europe. I am sure that those dialogues are continuing, but I will bring my hon. Friend’s concern to the Chancellor’s attention.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate to congratulate the Prime Minister on his wisdom in forecasting, just before the election, that the next major scandal affecting the House would involve lobbying? Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has done nothing about introducing his promised register.

Is this matter not quite separate from the inquiry into the Defence Secretary? Appalling accusations have been made that major lobbyists representing extreme views paid an individual who was not registered as a lobbyist, did not register any interests and did not undergo any security checks, but nevertheless gained access to the top discussions in this country and abroad. That dreadful situation requires an urgent debate and legislation.

[Sir George Young]

The previous Government totally ignored the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists; they did absolutely nothing. We have given a coalition commitment to introduce such a register, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) confirmed from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday. He will publish a comprehensive consultation so that the widest range of views can be considered, with a view to introducing legislation providing for a statutory register of lobbyists.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Neal Butterworth, editor of the influential Bournemouth Daily Echo, has drawn it to my attention that media passes for the Olympics are not being given out fairly to the local and regional press. May we have a statement from the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, so that our local media can be properly represented?

[Sir George Young]

I understand why all our local papers are anxious to have access to next year’s Olympics. I will certainly raise this with Department for Culture, Media and Sport Ministers, although it might be a matter for the organisers of the Olympics. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I will pass it on.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent statement on whether any Conservative candidate at the last general election received illegal funding for foreign travel from foreign organisations linked to Adam Werritty?

[Sir George Young]

If there is any evidence that anything illegal has taken place, the hon. Gentleman should notify the police.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has now published its report into pub companies, which shows that self-regulation has failed and that the Government must now legislate. The Government have said they will do that, so may we have a statement in the House from the responsible Minister, instead of just the normal response to the Select Committee report?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in promoting the interests of those who run pubs and who often face onerous Pubco terms. I am aware of the report the hon. Gentleman mentions, which basically says that the voluntary agreement has not worked. I cannot anticipate when the Government will respond to that, but I will inform the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills of the hon. Gentleman’s appetite for an early announcement.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

On 2 December last year I put a question about Southern Cross to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and received the dismissive reply that it was a matter for local authorities. I think he subsequently came to regret that response. An article in today’s Financial Times claims that from the summer of that year the chief executive of Southern Cross had been informing the Department that he wanted a meeting with the Minister in order to explain the seriousness of the problems and the possible consequences, but, again, the Minister said his diary was too full. May we have a statement from the Minister explaining his actions—or, rather, explaining his complete inertia?

[Sir George Young]

A written ministerial statement on Southern Cross was published on Monday; the right hon. Gentleman may have seen it. Because of the piece in the press today, I have made some inquiries. There have been regular constructive discussions between the Government and Southern Cross representatives since the moment it became clear that the Government were in difficulty. Ministers took the situation seriously, and they were kept fully informed. There were numerous meetings between senior Department of Health officials, the company and others, to seek to formulate a solution that protected the health and well-being of the residents. Ministers were kept fully in the picture.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Following today’s worrying report from the Care Quality Commission on the lamentable standards in the care of older people in the NHS—it found that 20% of the 100 hospitals it inspected were almost criminally negligent—may we have a debate on this subject?

[Sir George Young]

In response to the previous question, I think that instead of saying Southern Cross was in difficulty, I said that the Government were in difficulty, which of course they never are.

Like my hon. Friend, I was very concerned by the reports in today’s press. Everyone admitted to hospital deserves to be treated as an individual and with compassion and dignity, which is why we commissioned the report she mentions. It certainly shows the value of unannounced inspections. It found some exemplary care, but it also found that some hospitals were not getting even the basics right. The new Health and Social Care Bill gives new responsibilities to Monitor to integrate health care across health care services. I hope that everyone will learn the lessons: that some things need to be done tomorrow to put things right; that there are problems of culture, such as putting paperwork before patients; and that there is inadequate management training and leadership in hospitals. Some of these problems may have been going on for some time. Important lessons must be learned if we are to improve the quality of care in many of our hospitals.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the future profile of civilian jobs in the Ministry of Defence? Many people in my constituency are concerned that they will lose their jobs while he is flying around the world with his mate.

[Sir George Young]

I understand why Labour Members want to continue on this issue, but the Secretary of State for Defence has a responsible job to do on behalf of this country and the Government. He should be allowed to get on with it and the hon. Gentleman should wait for the Cabinet Secretary’s report into the issues he raises.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Given the recent decision by the Communities and Local Government Secretary to overturn the inspector’s decision to reject 500 new homes in Hampton Park II in Salisbury, may I urge the Leader of the House to table a debate on public understanding of localism? Local councillors, community groups and residents constructively engaged to persuade the inspector to turn the application down, and they are now bemused and do not understand what localism means.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern of another of my parliamentary neighbours about the outcome of that decision in his constituency. My hon. Friend asks for a debate, but I have just announced a debate next Thursday on the national planning policy framework, which will provide an opportunity for him to raise that issue and get a response. The decision was issued on 21 September. The Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction in the matter, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits as we are still within the six-week period during which the decision can be challenged in the High Court.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that G20 meetings are increasingly becoming as important as those of the G8. The next G20 meeting, in November, will be particularly important. Will the Government agree to have a debate in advance of a G20 summit in which the House can express its views on the policies that the Government should put forward, as used to be the case for G8 meetings, and to ensure that there is a statement from the Prime Minister after the summit to report on and account for what has happened?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and I agree that such an approach would be desirable. I am not sure whether he has approached the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it would find time for such a debate, but I will certainly take account of what he has said in planning future Government business.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the rise in the number of photovoltaic cells on houses across the United Kingdom is a policy started by the former Government and rightly continued by this one. However, the rise of cowboys installing them is costing the country money and resources, and putting people’s long-term ownership of houses at risk. May we have a debate on this Government’s renewable energy policy to discuss the photovoltaic cells that are being put on householders’ roofs?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend might catch your eye, Mr Speaker, a week today during Department of Energy and Climate Change questions, but in the meantime I will alert the Secretary of State and ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the recent report showing that 20% of FTSE 100 companies do not have any women on their board and that it will take 20 years before one in three executives are women, so may we have an urgent debate to show everyone outside that this House believes in positive action and not just positive words?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a speech about this a few days ago, urging the FTSE companies to do even better. As for a debate, the hon. Lady may wish to raise the matter with the Backbench Business Committee or, indeed, to apply to you, Mr Speaker, for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that we can have a proper discussion of this important issue.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

The East of England strategic health authority published an independent review into Downham Market health centre, which found serious failings in oversight by the authorities, as no action was taken after four serious incidents at the health centre. I am very concerned that, as yet, no individuals have been held to account for those failures. Please may we have a statement from the Health Secretary on the steps he will take to ensure that people are accountable?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern to make sure that anyone guilty of misdemeanour is held accountable. This is a matter for the local NHS, and I understand that NHS Midlands and East is working with NHS Norfolk and the Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust to take forward the report’s recommendations. I have been assured by NHS Norfolk that there will be accountability for the failings to which she refers.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

When we discuss the Localism Bill next week, will the Government give a guarantee that the protections against the sale of playing fields—school playing fields or public playing fields—will still be in place? At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill to protect those playing fields.

[Sir George Young]

The debate next Thursday is not on the Bill as such—it is on the policy framework—but the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and raise those issues. In the meantime, I will alert the relevant Secretary of State to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the disposal of playing fields and that he is anxious that proper protection should be in place to ensure that children and others have access to recreational facilities.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on the report by the British Hospitality Association, which was published today and which was mentioned in The Times? The report calls for a reduction in VAT in the sector, as happens in many European countries, which would benefit all seaside towns, including my own, and greatly help local tourism in this country.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the impact of VAT on the hospitality sector, particularly in his constituency. He will know that taxation matters are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be coming to the House in November, as the shadow Leader of the House said. When he does so, my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to press him on the issue.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House announced a shorter week in November when detailing the calendar. Will he confirm that the Prime Minister will account to the House on 15 November, which is during that week?

[Sir George Young]

If the House is not sitting on a particular day, it is difficult for the Prime Minister to come to be held to account. I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on his appointment to the Opposition Whips Office, that the Prime Minister has made more statements from this Dispatch Box than his predecessor, that he has stood here, on some occasions for hours on end, being held to account by the House and that he has appeared before the Liaison Committee, so my right hon. Friend has no fears about coming to the Dispatch Box to answer questions.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be well aware that lots of colleagues on the Government Benches were very concerned about the impact of the proposed pension reforms on a particular group of women. I welcome the idea that we will have some movement on that and a statement today. As this is such a vital issue, perhaps he could expand on what the Government are going to do. Will we see amendments to the Pensions Bill next week?

[Sir George Young]

Yes, it is probably easiest if I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement, which sets out the amendments that are being tabled today. It states:

“The amendment to Clause 1 will ameliorate the increase in State Pension age for around 245,000 women and 240,000 men and reduce total savings from the increase to 66 by around £1.1 billion…It maintains our policy to equalise the State Pension age for men and women in 2018 and increase to 66 by 2020.”

My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to intervene in that debate, but I note that she welcomes the fact that the Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed and taken steps to mitigate the impact on women of the increase in the state pension age.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will, I hope, be aware of this week’s damning report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which predicts that an additional 500,000 children will be living in absolute poverty by 2015 as a direct result of this Government’s policies. May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s abject failure to keep their promise to end child poverty?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady will know that progress towards the target of eliminating child poverty by 2020 stalled under the previous Government. We remain committed to that target. The universal credit will take 600,000 adults and 450,000 children out of poverty, as the IFS said. The report also examined tax and benefits, but did not look at some of the broader things that the Government are doing, for example, in the Work programme. I am sure that she will be pleased to hear that we remain committed to the target of eliminating child poverty by 2020.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I am chairman of the all-party group for motor neurone disease, and the group has recently produced a report on access to care for those suffering from the disease. It is a dreadful, devastating disease; would it be possible to have a debate on access to palliative care for sufferers?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the work that the all-party group—my hon. Friend and other Members from both sides of the House—have done to emphasise the importance of palliative care for those who suffer from motor neurone disease. I think it would be an excellent subject for a debate in this House, either nominated by the Backbench Business Committee or in Westminster Hall. The Government would very much like to hear more about the report to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

In answer to my written question yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), told me that he would not be considering plans put forward by staff at Crosby coastguard that would save the Government money on plans for a new maritime operations centre. The Crosby plan would use existing buildings and makes revenue savings, too, whereas the Government plan is for a new build. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any plan that saves the Government money should at least be evaluated, not disregarded before such an evaluation takes place, and will he ask his colleague to reconsider his decision?

[Sir George Young]

Of course, the Government are interested in all options that might save money, and I will put that option to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I have recently been dealing with a case on behalf of two constituents who were dismissed from their jobs with a commercial cleaning firm called Jani-King, allegedly for being British. May we have a debate on discrimination against British workers in this country?

[Sir George Young]

If anything illegal has taken place, I hope the appropriate authorities will be notified. I shall share my hon. Friend’s concern with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and see whether anything irregular has taken place.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

There are reports that up to 60 NHS hospitals face serious financial difficulties due to the new burdens being imposed by NHS reforms. As there are risks that such trusts could be taken over by private sector health interests, may we have an urgent debate or an urgent statement, so that we can take some action before the situation becomes terminal?

[Sir George Young]

No trust can be taken over by a private sector concern, but I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that any financial problems confronting his trust or other trusts would be even worse without the extra resources committed by this Government, which his party opposed.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) recently received a written answer from the hon. Member who represents the House of Commons Commission showing that the marginal costs of the House sitting for just two weeks in September could be £1.5 million on an ongoing basis. May we have a debate on the merits of moving the party conference season to save that money for the public purse?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Sir George Young]

I thought my hon. Friend was going to suggest abolishing the party conference season, which might have received an even greater cheer—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] He raises a serious issue, in that the party conference season imposes some constraints on the parliamentary calendar, and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of the chairmen of my party and the opposite numbers in the parliamentary Labour party and the other parties—[Interruption.] We have a chairman and a chairwoman. I shall see whether there is any emerging consensus on the treatment of political conferences in the future.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I note that the Leader of the House passed very hastily over the answer to the first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) today about the meetings between Adam Werritty, Ministers and members of Downing street staff. Will he assure us that that information will be made promptly available and that if there is anything of substance in it, it will be the subject of a statement to the House?

[Sir George Young]

I do not think it makes sense to have a running commentary on the inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary into the Secretary of State for Defence and related matters. I have said that the inquiry will deal with all unanswered questions and outstanding issues, and the sooner it is brought to a conclusion, the better. In the meantime, I think it is sensible to avoid speculation.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In 1997 the incoming Prime Minister said that his priorities were “education, education, education”, yet 14 years on, a publication has shown that in reading, 15-year-olds in our classrooms are a year behind those in our competitor countries. May we have an urgent debate on the actions that the Government will take to remove this appalling legacy for the people whose future has been prejudiced?

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome such a debate. Some of those issues were touched on in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Monday. I would welcome further opportunities to debate the steps that we are taking to drive up standards of education in our schools.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Following the riots in the summer, the Prime Minister announced a cross-departmental review of gangs and serious youth violence. A strategy is due to be published this month. Can the House have a debate on this vital issue in Government time?

[Sir George Young]

There will be a debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall on the riots, and the hon. Lady might like to go to that and to ask that question. She is right to say that there is an ongoing report into gang violence and related issues, and I hope that it will be made available in the relatively near future.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Well over 2,000 early-day motions have been tabled in this Parliament so far, and it is estimated that they cost the taxpayer around £1 million each and every year. Given that in the last year we had a spending review that carefully considered every aspect of public expenditure, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that we should now have a debate to examine the cost-effectiveness and value of early-day motions?

[Hon. Members]

Table an early-day motion!

[Sir George Young]

It is suggested that my hon. Friend table an early-day motion to abolish early-day motions. He is not alone in believing that the costs of the current arrangements outweigh the benefits, but on the other hand many people place some value on early-day motions. Any debate on early-day motions should take place in Backbench Business Committee time and be informed by the views of the Procedure Committee; its Chairman was in his place a few moments ago, and I shall draw those remarks to his attention.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There are only three more days allocated for private Members’ Bills before the end of this Session, but there are 96 such Bills now tabled for consideration on those days. Some of them are completely and utterly bonkers, because, frankly, they come from Members whose grasp of reality is somewhat strained anyway—[Interruption.] Mine is splendid, obviously. As only one more of those Bills is likely to become law in this Session, does that not show that the system for examining private Members’ Bills is now completely bust? We need to reform it. Before the Leader of the House says that that is up to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, could he please show some leadership on this matter in his remaining weeks as Leader of the House, as he will have to hand all the business over to the Backbench Business Committee by the start of the third Session?

[Sir George Young]

I was hoping that I had a little bit more than a week left in this post. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Procedure Committee is looking at private Members’ Bills, the way in which they are treated, and whether it makes sense to deal with them on Fridays. We have allocated more Fridays to private Members’ Bills to reflect the length of this Session. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s rather dismissive remarks about the Procedure Committee, I think this is something that it is worth its while investigating.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend be willing to have a debate on mental health issues for young people? According to today’s edition of the Plymouth Herald, a very good organ in my constituency:

“Hundreds of vulnerable children in Plymouth are having to wait months for mental health treatment”,

and 90 have had to wait beyond the 18 weeks allowed.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. Funding for child and adolescent mental health services for local authorities has been maintained and is included within funding provided for ongoing personal social services. That funding is due to rise in line with inflation through to 2014-15, but it is for commissioners at a local level to decide how best to spend the money.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Department for Transport’s policy of installing station barriers even when they block pedestrian access to established routes for non-rail users? Such is the situation in Sheffield. The previous Government made a commitment that no barriers would be installed until alternative access routes were provided, but the current Government have changed their mind, apparently.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to write to him.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the history of the Conservative party so we can gently remind our coalition partners that, far from being the party that sent children up chimneys, we are the party of Wilberforce, who abolished slavery, the party of Disraeli, who emancipated the working classes, the party of Baldwin, who brought in universal suffrage, and the party of Thatcher, who turned Britain into a property-owning democracy?

[Sir George Young]

Whose birthday it is today, and I am sure that the whole House wishes Baroness Thatcher a very happy birthday. It was not right to say that the party—my party—is the ideological descendent of the people who sent children up chimneys. Lord Shaftesbury introduced the legislation against the practice; I am not sure where the Liberals were on that matter.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Following the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to uphold Scottish Parliament legislation that will allow people who have been exposed to asbestos to receive compensation, will the Government now introduce legislation here to enable pleural plaque sufferers across the UK to achieve justice?

[Sir George Young]

I shall certainly raise that matter with the appropriate Minister—perhaps the Attorney-General, the Justice Secretary or the Home Secretary. The hon. Lady raises an important issue and I shall ensure that she gets an answer.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

May we have a debate about immigration? Many of my constituents are keen to see the Government make progress on their promise to reduce migration from the hundreds of thousands that came in under the previous Government to a more reasonable level.

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome such a debate and I am sure that the Opposition would too, as they now recognise that this is an issue that they did not take seriously. We could set out the measures we are taking on students, family visas and work permits to bring the numbers down to a sustainable level.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Following the Home Secretary’s conference speech, which drew such praise from the Lord Chancellor, when can we expect to have an opportunity to discuss her amendments to the Human Rights Act 1998?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have just set up a commission to consider the Human Rights Act. When that reports, there may be an opportunity to debate its recommendations and conclusions.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

May I add my name to those of the Opposition Members who are calling for a debate on NHS funding? NHS East Lancashire has just been given the go-ahead for a new £10 million, state-of-the-art health centre in Colne town centre, subject to the approval of NHS Lancashire and the North of England strategic health authority. This Government’s £12.5 billion increase in investment in the NHS has been widely welcomed, and stands in stark contrast to the Labour party’s proposed cuts of £28 million.

[Sir George Young]

I am glad that the extra funding is being put to good use in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I remind him that the shadow Secretary of State for Health said:

“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Leader of the House aware of the 1,400 job losses that will occur at BAE Systems as a result of the Government’s cutting the defence budget too far and too fast? That is having a devastating effect on families across Lancashire and on the manufacturing base in this country. May we have a debate specifically on the future of manufacturing in this country?

[Sir George Young]

I know that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Defence are anxious to mitigate the problems that confront BAE Systems and a number of towns throughout the country that have been impacted by the reduction in defence spending—which I suspect the hon. Gentleman’s party would have had to do in any event had it been re-elected. I shall certainly pursue the particular issue in his constituency and see what steps can be taken to mitigate the impact on unemployment.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that many of us have struggled to enjoy the rugby down under in recent weeks—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kris Hopkins]

May I wish Wales every success in their match against France? In Yorkshire, not only do we have Leeds Rhinos, who have thrashed our Lancastrian opposition, but the Keighley Cougars have become the grand finalist champions. May we have a statement heralding their support please?

[Sir George Young]

I am certainly happy to wish Wales very well in the semi-final.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, Hartlepool borough council passed a vote of no confidence in the management of the local NHS trust as a result of the loss of accident and emergency services at Hartlepool hospital. The Secretary of State has said that this is a local matter, but the local authority has made its views clear. I know that other areas, such as Chase Farm, have similar problems, so could we have a debate in Government time on local accountability and the reconfiguration of services in the NHS?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for the Health and Social Care Bill, which is currently in another place. The Bill reinforces the links between the NHS and local government, and gives local government much more influence on how the NHS will be run in future.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As energy bills rocket and more of my constituents might be unable to pay their energy bills—especially if this winter is as hard as has been widely predicted—may I endorse the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for a debate so that the Government can reassure the House that the price of developing greener technologies will not fall on our poorest pensioners?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is quite right. There was a written ministerial statement earlier this week reminding everybody that cold weather payments are £25 a week when activated. Those payments complement the winter fuel payments, the green deal and other measures we are taking to reduce the costs of energy. There is also work going on to increase transparency and the ease with which people can switch from one supplier to another. I would welcome such a debate.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May I press the Leader of the House and ask him whether we may please have a statement on NHS care for the elderly? As he knows, today’s Times describes it as

“a scandal that is getting worse”.

The House should discuss this as soon as possible.

[Sir George Young]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and other hon. Members have raised the reports in today’s press regarding the Care Quality Commission investigation into a number of hospitals. I would welcome such a debate, and I suggest that he should approach the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it might find time for one.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

These are unhappy times for employment. May we have a debate to congratulate Government Ministers on adding to total taxpayer-funded employment by having more special advisers—not including the unofficial one—than the Labour Government? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister will commit to his 2009 statement that Liberal Democrat special advisers will be paid from party political funds? As I like the House, and the Leader of the House, I am willing to work for him unpaid as a part-time special adviser if it helps to resolve the problem.

[Sir George Young]

That is a very generous offer, but I have total confidence in my current special adviser, who needs no reinforcements. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that on coming to office we appointed fewer special advisers than the outgoing Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I must thank the Leader of the House and colleagues for their extreme self-discipline, which has meant that all 43 Back Benchers who wished to take part in business questions had the opportunity to do so. It shows what can be done when we put our minds to it. I am most grateful to all colleagues.

Delegated legislation

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think it right for the House to hear from the Leader of the House before I deal with the point of order from the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg).

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government recognise the strength of feeling about the matter. We intend to table the motion for debate tomorrow, and if it is carried tomorrow—as I hope it will be—the business on Monday will take the shape outlined in motion 9.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for what he has said.

Business of the House

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

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

The business for the week commencing 10 October will be:

Monday 10 October—Remaining stages of the Protection of Freedoms Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 11 October—Remaining stages of the Protection of Freedoms Bill (day 2).

Wednesday 12 October—Opposition day [unallotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 13 October—Motions relating to the use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and Committees (HC 889), improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny (HC 800) and ministerial statements (HC 602), followed by general debate on High Speed 2.

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

The provisional business for the week commencing 17 October will include:

Monday 17 October—Motion relating to MPs’ pensions, followed by motion relating to disclosure and publication of documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 18 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 19 October—Opposition day. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 20 October—Consideration of Lords amendments.

Friday 21 October—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 and 20 October will be:

Thursday 13 October—A debate on responses to the riots.

Thursday 20 October—A debate on scrutiny of arms export controls (2011): UK strategic export controls annual report 2009, quarterly reports for 2010, licensing policy and review of export control legislation (HC 686).

Finally, on 12 July, the House was able to convey its gratitude to Sir Malcolm Jack on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House. As today is the last sitting day before the Clerk retires, may I take this further opportunity on behalf of the House to reiterate our gratitude and to send him our warmest wishes for the future?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. On behalf of the Opposition, may I join him in expressing again our thanks to Sir Malcolm for everything that he has done in the service of the House and of our democracy, and in wishing him all the best for the future?

May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on why, at Prime Minister’s questions, he keeps saying things that simply do not accord with the facts. Yesterday, he told the House:

“Bank lending is actually going up.”——[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 1034.]

Wrong. The Bank of England’s most recent data show that overall lending to businesses is falling. Yesterday he also claimed that private sector employment has increased by 500,000. Wrong. The Office for National Statistics confirms that private sector employment increased by only 264,000 in the year to June 2011. In answering a question about growth in the European Union by trying to talk about America instead—curiously, as America has not been part of Europe for nearly 250 years—he claimed that the UK is growing faster than the United States. That was wrong too. The US economy has grown by 2.6% over the past year to the end of the second quarter, while the UK has grown by only 0.7%.

The Prime Minister takes the most important decisions, and he has a responsibility to do so on the basis of accurate facts, yet it is now clear that he is repeatedly getting things wrong. It might be incompetence—he might actually believe all this stuff—but either way, it is no wonder that the public are losing confidence in the Government’s economic policy.

May we have a debate on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England? The Leader of the House will be aware of the deep disquiet, not to say anger, about the proposals, which, in places, will divide communities and destroy relationships that have been built up over many years between constituents and their Members of Parliament, and all in pursuit of an over-rigid mathematical formula. For example, there is a proposed constituency for Gloucester minus the cathedral that makes it a city, and one for a new seat called the Mersey Banks, covering three different local authorities, where one would have to leave the constituency three times and go over a bridge to get from one end of it to the other. It is no wonder that words such as “muddle”, “utterly random” and “barking” have been heard this week. Even the mild-mannered Business Secretary has complained.

This is only the beginning because, as the House will be aware, the same inflexible formula will be applied every five years from now on, so we can expect further regular disruption, with MPs and their constituents not knowing who will be representing whom next. Given the disruption that the changes will bring, I suspect that quite a few Members who voted for the Bill that led to the proposals will now be saying to themselves, “What have we done?”

May we have a statement on reports that the Government propose to ask bereaved relatives, including those on low incomes, for payment when they go to register the death of a loved one? The charge, estimates of which vary from £100 to £180, is apparently intended to pay for a new system to check on causes of death, but the cost, which is no longer to be hidden in funeral directors’ charges, will be collected when families turn up, often in a distressed state, at the register office, or they will be sent an invoice later. Given that the Conservative party made such a fuss at the last election about a so-called death tax, will a Minister explain at the Dispatch Box why they now plan to impose one?

Finally, having mentioned Mr Steve Hilton last week, this week we have been helpfully provided with a restricted memo from his comrade at No. 10, Mr Andrew Cooper. Headed, “The problem”, it reveals that women voters just do not like this Government. In a damning section, it says that

“we are clear that there are a range of policies we have pursued as a Government which are seen as having hit women, or their interests, disproportionately, including: Public sector pay and pensions…Tuition fees, Abolition of Child Trust Funds, Changes to child tax credit and the childcare element, Changes to child benefit.”

Mr Cooper is clearly a man who can get his judgment and his facts right. We wish him well in trying to persuade his boss to do the same.

[Sir George Young]

Yet again the right hon. Gentleman has made no substantive criticism of the business the Government have laid before the House for the next two weeks. He will have noted that we have allocated two days for the Report stage of a Bill, which was virtually unheard of in the Government of whom he was a member.

On statistics, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look carefully at the dates to which the statistics that he read out apply. He might well find that the Prime Minister’s statistics were perfectly accurate, and that the ones that he used were also accurate. The period over which one takes statistics is crucial, and ‘twas ever thus.

On the Boundary Commission, it is indefensible that a constituency such as Arfon currently has some 40,000 voters, whereas East Ham has more than 90,000. That is the position that the boundaries Bill, which is now on the statute book, was set to address. We are also reducing the numbers of Members of Parliament. This House is the largest directly elected Chamber in the whole of Europe, and we believe that Members can perfectly adequately represent 77,000 people, and many already do. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has been inconvenienced by the proposals. I understand that there might be an interesting discussion between him and the shadow Chancellor, and my sympathies are entirely with him. He knows better than anybody that the place to make such representations about boundaries is not in the House, but to the Boundary Commission.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

What about your boundaries?

[Sir George Young]

This is my fifth boundary review. I have been expanded, reduced and abolished. These reforms have no surprises.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a serious issue about the fees that are payable on the registration of a death. The issue may arise from the coroners legislation, and I will ask the Lord Chancellor to write to him with a response.

The right hon. Gentleman ended with a reference to Mr Hilton. Last week, the right hon. Gentleman bombarded me with seven requests for debates, and I assumed that the Opposition would choose at least one of them for the Opposition day on Tuesday, but not one of the subjects that he felt were so important last Thursday appeared on the agenda. I think we have rumbled him. For him, these sessions are just as much opportunities to display his great sense of humour as to make serious bids for debates.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on social mobility and aspiration? I am sure that many people were touched by the report in The Sunday Times of an 11-year-old girl, Aliyah Tribak, who was desperately trying to raise funds to go to the independent school that she wanted to get into but could not afford, as she is from a deprived background in Tower Hamlets. If the Government are serious about social mobility and allowing people to meet their aspirations, surely it is time that we reintroduced the assisted places scheme, so that the best schools in the country are available to the poorest and not just the preserve of the rich and privileged.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the forceful case that my hon. Friend makes for the restoration of assisted places. Our view is that the best way to make progress is to pursue our policy on free schools, which inevitably have a much broader catchment area than those of the independent sector, and to drive up standards for all children in all schools, which is the thrust of my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s policy. I hope that that will achieve the objectives of social mobility and aspiration that my hon. Friend has just enunciated.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

May I add my thanks to Sir Malcolm Jack and wish him every success for the future?

In his business statement, the Leader of the House mentioned a couple of Back-Bench debates, one on Hillsborough and the other on the riots, both of which arguably started as a result of an e-petition that reached 100,000 signatures. At Tuesday’s meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, we discussed the best way to proceed with e-petitions, and decided that in the short term we were only able to hear proposals involving e-petitions directly from Members as part of a bid, which we would consider on their merits as we would for normal bids. The Committee will continue to discuss the matter to find a long-term solution for dealing more satisfactorily with e-petitions and to ensure that, rather than becoming gimmicks, they are meaningful. Until we find such a long-term solution, will the Leader of the House commit to giving the Backbench Business Committee additional time to accommodate the new e-pressures that the Government have put on us?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and her Committee for finding time to debate the two e-petitions that had crossed the 100,000 threshold. We note her public service announcement that e-petitions will be debated only if they are picked up by a Member and then formally presented to her for debate.

The hon. Lady asked about time for her Committee. As I have said on earlier occasions, we will honour the commitment to a minimum of 35 days in a Session, and because the current Session is longer, more than 35 days will be provided. Now that the bulk—although not all—of the legislative programme has been completed in the House of Commons, I hope that in the months and weeks ahead it may be possible to find more headroom for Backbench Business Committee debates. As is clear from the business that I have just announced, there will be more time for the Committee than there has been in recent weeks.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Very tragically, a toddler was killed last year in a house fire in my constituency. The inquest has now reported that the fire was caused by another child playing with matches, which then ignited a highly flammable mattress. Could time be found for a debate on fire safety, which would include advice on preventing access to flammable materials and on the use of flame-retardant furnishings to help reduce the risk of such tragic events happening again in the future?

[Sir George Young]

The whole House will have been sorry to hear of the loss of life of the toddler in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I believe that there are restrictions on the materials that can be used in many items of furniture. However, I will raise the instance that the hon. Gentleman has given with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is responsible for consumer affairs, and see whether there are any further steps that we can take to avoid a repetition of the tragedy.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Government have proposed the most fundamental changes to our planning system for 64 years. Widespread concern has been expressed about the fact that the national planning policy framework fails to strike the right balance between growth on one hand, and the protection of our natural environment and ensuring a real say for local people on the other. Do the Government intend to put the final draft of the framework to Parliament, following full consultation, so that both Houses can vote on it?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a period of consultation on the draft national planning policy framework. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for planning, has on many occasions sought to reassure both the House and the country as a whole that our policies—unlike some designed by our opponents—will create sustainable growth, but not at the expense of the environment and the green belt. The framework does not override local plans, and it protects the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and the rest. I personally would welcome a debate at the end of the process, so that the House could have an opportunity to let its views be heard on this important issue.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the relative merits of unilateral and multilateral approaches to the taxation of banks? This Government introduced a unilateral tax on bank balance sheets. We could discuss whether that is a better approach than waiting for a global tax, which I think would still not have come about.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we would still be waiting for the global tax if it had been necessary to secure universal agreement before it went ahead. She is also right to remind the House of the unilateral bank levy that we introduced, which will raise almost £10 million during the current Parliament. The one-off bonus tax proposed by the Labour party has real disadvantages, not least the fact that the person who designed it says that a permanent tax would not work.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

In my constituency, which adjoins Newcastle, four young people have died in recent months after taking cocktails of substances including legally dispensed methadone which has been sold on to them. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health about what he will do to try to prevent such tragic events from occurring again?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to put those questions to the Secretary of State for Health on Tuesday 18 October. In the meantime, I will write to the Secretary of State asking whether any further steps are possible—in addition to those that we have already taken—to stop the unnecessary loss of young life among those who are taking these concoctions.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Could time be found for an urgent debate on a new European Union directive which, according to the charity Diabetes UK, will result in up to 1 million people with diabetes having their driving licences taken away? It would appear that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is applying the directive far more swiftly than it is being applied in other countries. The ban is due to be introduced next month, so may we have that urgent debate?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I do not know whether he was present for Transport questions earlier today and had an opportunity to raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am aware of the draft directive, and will raise it with my right hon. Friend and ask him to drop the hon. Gentleman a line.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I think it is generally agreed that the Select Committee system is increasingly showing its worth, but the Leader of the House will be aware of two emerging difficulties: the refusal of witnesses to attend, and the level of veracity of the evidence given. Will he arrange a debate to explore possible remedies, or undertake to consider the issues and report back to the House?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I think the issue would be best explored in the first instance through an informal meeting between me and the Liaison Committee, as I imagine that it affects a number of Select Committees. I should be more than willing to engage in such a discussion to establish whether any further steps are necessary.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My constituency contains the villages of Irchester and Wollaston, which are separated by some beautiful countryside. I have been contacted by residents who fear that the Government’s planning proposals will lead to the land being concreted over. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), may we have a debate that would expose the myth that the Government’s planning legislation will concrete over the whole of the countryside?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the role that he is playing in demolishing such myths. I said earlier that I would welcome a debate on the draft national policy framework, but if there is a local plan, local people can protect that piece of land from development. I think the message conveyed by my hon. Friend’s question is that it is important for each local authority to have an up-to-date local development plan, informed by local opinion, so that any development that takes place has a local consensus behind it.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the public service workers are to be balloted on industrial action aimed at protecting their pensions—industrial action that the workers do not want and the country does not need. Even at this late stage, can the Leader of the House use his good offices to ask the Government to demonstrate, not with warm words but with action, that they are taking the negotiations seriously?

[Sir George Young]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I wonder if I could put the same question to him. Can he use his good offices to persuade the relevant unions to call off the action? It is unnecessary, it would damage economic growth and recovery, and many of us consider it to be wholly premature.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House can vote before Christmas on our sitting hours? The Procedure Committee is considering both sitting hours and the calendar of the House, but would it not be best for us to have a report on sitting hours? I think that there is a strong wish to return to the earlier start on Tuesdays that operated between 2003 and 2005.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Procedure is conducting an inquiry into the parliamentary calendar, and I understand that some eight hon. Members gave evidence to it yesterday. I am not sure that the Committee is planning to report within the time scale that my hon. Friend has suggested, but certainly any change in the sitting hours will be subject to a vote in the House, which I suspect will take place some time next year.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Before the election the Prime Minister promised to take tough action against people who are involved in knife crime, but we know from the latest figures that people who are involved in such crimes are now less likely to go to jail. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?

[Sir George Young]

We have had an opportunity to debate the Government’s proposals on legislation. We have taken a much tougher approach to those who carry knives and then engage in aggressive behaviour, who are now more likely to end up in prison than was the case before.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

On hearing threats of industrial action emerge from the TUC conference, my constituents are understandably concerned about the impact on their children’s education and the emergency services, for example. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on industrial relations, so that Members can express their views on whether we need to strengthen the laws governing strike ballots?

[Sir George Young]

It is very disappointing that there have been proposals for ballots on industrial action while negotiations are still going on between the Government and the unions. Any such action would be premature. We have no plans at this stage to change the legislation on industrial action, but we will monitor the application of the law in that important area, particularly if strike action takes place, and we will bear all views in mind if it does prove necessary to reassess the legal framework.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have now said that bringing Siemens to Hull is a key priority for the Government, but may we have a debate so that we can learn whether Department of Energy and Climate Change Ministers have a long-term commitment to the offshore wind energy sector?

[Sir George Young]

I understand that such commitments have already been given in broad terms by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. There will be an opportunity on 20 October to press him further on these issues; in the meantime, I will share the hon. Lady’s concern with him.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on the future of my local hospital, Chase Farm, not least because before the general election my constituents were joined by the Prime Minister on their “Save our A and E” campaign and given assurances, and unsurprisingly they and I feel utterly let down?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment. We said before the election that there would be a moratorium on such closures, and there was a moratorium. That case was re-examined in light of the four criteria set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He asked the borough council to see whether an alternative configuration could be developed, but that was not the case, and an independent review showed there were real safety issues in the current configuration. Against that background, difficult decisions were taken, but I understand that those decisions have the support of local doctors.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

After lots of time, effort and money, the Department for Work and Pensions central complaints champions have come up with, and circulated to all DWP outlets, the groundbreaking formula that a complaint

“is an expression of dissatisfaction about the service”

received. Please will the Leader of the House inquire of his DWP colleagues what this exercise has cost? Would not the money have been better spent on staff and on the pensions of the people working in benefits offices, who are delivering the service to those who have been made unemployed by this Tory Government, with unemployment now at levels not seen since the ’80s?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman’s account of that incident. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate on banking and specifically the Vickers report, so that we can discuss why the Labour party continues to oppose real reform and instead supports the failed system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Chancellor’s statement earlier this week. The Government are now examining the report in detail and we want to keep the House updated on its implementation. We welcome the report and have given our support to its central recommendations. An initial response will be given by the end of the year. We were all pleased, if somewhat surprised, to hear the shadow Chancellor apologise on Tuesday for being partly responsible for the failed system of regulation under the previous Government.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

May we then have a debate on bank charges, following the news this morning that both RBS and Clydesdale bank are, for the first time in their history, to charge credit unions for banking services, so that we can make our view clear that banks should not pass on their charges to vulnerable organisations and customers in the current circumstances?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. One of the Vickers report’s recommendations is that it should be much easier to switch accounts from one bank to another. I therefore hope that if a bank raises its charges, it will be easier for people to transfer their custom to a bank that offers a more competitive service.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the independence of British newspapers? Yesterday while perusing his copy of the Morning Star, he may have read, beneath the headline “Could You Be Any More Wet”, the TUC’s reaction to the Leader of the Opposition described as “heckling, derisive laughter” and “deflation”. Given that dramatic about-turn, may we have a debate on that, too?

[Sir George Young]

I am afraid that I did not read yesterday’s Morning Star, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing me with an abbreviated edition. The ownership of newspapers was the peg on which he hung his question, and that is a matter for the Leveson inquiry.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I associate myself with the tributes to Malcolm Jack? Not only has he been a brilliant, innovative, modernising Clerk, but he shares with me the privilege of having graduated from the London School of Economics.

On our return after the recess, may we have an urgent debate on what is going on in Iceland? It still owes this country billions of pounds, which it refuses to pay to local authorities and individuals, and it is becoming quite a rogue state in that it is colluding with Japan in killing minkes and other whales and is now making arrangements with the Chinese Government to exploit the natural resources that are the inheritance of us all.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman, using some fairly stark language about Iceland, has raised a number of issues, some of which fall to the Treasury, while others, I suspect, fall to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I will raise them with my colleagues. I am unsure whether there is any direct action that we can take on any debts of the Iceland Government, but he will know that there are some consequentials from the failure of the Kaupthing bank.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Agriculture and food processing industries play a vital role in Staffordshire and exports from these sectors are increasing year on year. May we have a debate on the contribution they can and will make to growth and employment, provided that that is not impeded by unnecessary regulation, of which we see more looming across the channel?

[Sir George Young]

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s request. He might like to present himself to the salon of the Backbench Business Committee to suggest such a debate. We will support British farming as much as we can and encourage sustainable food production, so that we can have a secure, environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food with improved standards of animal welfare.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Sadly, the number of assaults on NHS staff appears to be on the increase. May we have a debate about how we might ensure the safety and security of health workers?

[Sir George Young]

I deplore any assaults on those who work for the NHS. In the first instance, it would be for the local NHS trust to take up any such problems and improve security. If the hon. Gentleman can pass on to me specific examples from his constituency, I will raise them with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and see whether there is any role for the Government to play in reducing the number of attacks.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to see that the Backbench Business Committee has scheduled two e-petitions debates, one on the Hillsborough disaster and another on the response to the riots. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a golden opportunity to show due courtesy and respect to the hundreds of thousands of petitioners by setting a precedent and having a Cabinet Minister present to respond to both debates?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject. As I have said before, there have been occasions when a Cabinet Minister has responded to a debate in Westminster Hall. I will certainly pass on to the relevant Minister my hon. Friend’s specific request for the debate on Hillsborough, so that he is aware of the feeling in the House that it would be appropriate for him to respond.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

On 9 June, the Leader of the House agreed to use his considerable influence to seek a decision about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal, as we were then awaiting the decision of the medals review. I was told that it was hoped that there would be a decision by the summer, but the summer has come and gone and my questions are being bounced between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, leading me to wonder if the “Circumlocution Office” is again operating. May we have a statement immediately after the House returns in October on what is happening in that medals review and when we can expect the brave veterans concerned to be able to wear their medal with pride?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s impatience to get a decision, but the summer has not, I hope, entirely gone—some of us have lingering hopes there might be a few days of sunshine left. I will, however, raise the issue with the relevant Minister and see whether we can expedite a decision, as I know the process has gone on for quite some time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I was afraid that you were going to pick me, Mr Speaker. May we have a debate on the importance of in-patient beds in acute mental health facilities, given that those at Woodhaven hospital in my constituency face the possibility of closure, unless people write in urgently to the consultation that is under way?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. As he says, a consultation process is under way to which I urge him to respond, although I am sure that he has already done so. I know that others will have heard our exchange and that if they share his concern, they also will write to the NHS trust.

[Mr Speaker]

I am pleased to say that they will also have heard the single sentence from the hon. Member for New Forest East, and I feel sure that they will have appreciated it.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Last week, on a visit to my local Remploy factory in Wishaw, I met some disabled people who are genuinely terrified that they are about to lose their jobs and see their factory close. Will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on that very serious subject?

[Sir George Young]

Of course I understand the concern of anybody who is confronted with the possible loss of their job. I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

In the light of the Prime Minister’s renewed commitment to strengthening families and the fact that the Northamptonshire Parent Infant Project has now opened in my constituency, may we have a debate on the crucial importance of the foundation years and early intervention in families who are struggling to bond with their new babies?

[Sir George Young]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that she will apply for an Adjournment debate, where we might be able to debate the matter at more length than the Speaker is likely to allow me now.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

May we have a serious debate on the boundary changes? We have no intermediate levels of government in our country, we are reducing the number of elected people and we are increasing the power of unelected officials from Brussels, from Whitehall and from town halls. We are taking away the voice of the citizens of Britain. This is a serious diminution of parliamentary democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

What the right hon. Gentleman proposes would be totally irregular. It is for the Boundary Commission to decide our boundaries. The matter will be debated at the end of the process, when the order comes before the House.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on controlling the deficit? The Government have clearly set out their spending plans, but such a debate might allow us to clarify how they compare with the plans of the Labour party, which in government did so much to create the deficit we inherited.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is worth reminding the House that the reductions in public expenditure this year are only £2 billion more than what was planned by the outgoing Labour Government.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to encourage the relevant Minister in the Department responsible for social inclusion to have a debate on the human rights of the deaf community in the UK, instead of leaving it to the Minister responsible for culture and communications when deaf people are denied access to video relay and use of British sign language?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern, I will raise it with the appropriate Minister and ask that the hon. Gentleman be sent a written reply.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the Government’s planning proposals, to give us all the opportunity to dispel the inaccurate myths being promoted by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and some other organisations, and to make it clear to the country that the Government’s planning proposals will substantially enhance the ability of and opportunity for local councillors and local people to affect what happens in their own areas?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend served with me as a Planning Minister—

[Tony Baldry]

Four years.

[Sir George Young]

Indeed, for four years. He therefore has some insight into the planning process. I indicated earlier that I would welcome a broader debate on planning policy so that the myths can be laid to rest.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House set aside time every week for “PMT”? As I understand it, his defence of the Prime Minister is that when the Prime Minister says something, for us to understand the statistic we just need to know the timeline he is applying to it. If the Prime Minister had a “Prime Minister’s Timeline” session every week, we would be able to understand that when he says, “Growth in the UK is bigger than in the United States of America”, he means that that was so under a Labour Government.

[Sir George Young]

The short answer is no.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

In 2004, the Wood report said that many British companies were at a disadvantage because of European Union procurement laws. Bearing that in mind, and given the disastrous procurement by the previous Labour Government of the Thameslink rolling stock contract, may we have a debate to address that, so that we can really have British jobs for British people?

[Sir George Young]

I hear what my hon. Friend has said. That matter was raised in Transport questions. We are reviewing the procurement rules to see whether British companies can compete on a level playing field with others when such contracts come up again.

[Mr Speaker]

Just in case I was unclear earlier, I ought to say that at no stage has there been anything wrong, irregular or in any way objectionable about the length of the Leader of the House’s replies. I was referring purely to the questions.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the “Review into the Needs of Families Bereaved by Homicide” report issued by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, so that this House can consider how its recommendations should be dealt with?

[Sir George Young]

We are grateful to Louise Casey for producing the report and we all applaud the work of victim support schemes in our constituencies. I would welcome such a debate. I remind the House that, following the report’s publication, we have made £500,000 available to take forward some of the immediate recommendations.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

May I ask for a debate on the criteria used by the Boundary Commission in its review and the inherent instability built into the system for the future? A city such as Sheffield has wards of 14,000 people, so only a small amount of house building in a new constituency such as mine is likely to mean that in five years’ time, there will be a knock-on effect in Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley, because the ward size in Sheffield is such that it will not be possible to carry out further reorganisation there. This complete reorganisation is bad for democratic accountability.

[Sir George Young]

I repeat what I said earlier: it would be quite wrong of this House to get involved in the detailed boundaries that will be set out under the review process. The place for the hon. Gentleman to make his representations is not here; it is to the Boundary Commission.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on attempts by the EU High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy to force through the creation of a permanent military headquarters for the European Union, using the artifice of permanent structured co-operation under the Lisbon treaty and contrary to the wishes of this Government?

[Sir George Young]

If it is contrary to the wishes of this Government, I very much hope it will not happen. There will be an opportunity at the next Defence questions to raise the matter, but in the meantime I will share my hon. Friend’s concern with the Secretary of State for Defence.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I have evidence that Scottish Enterprise, Scotland’s economic development agency, is behaving in a manner and using practices that may damage sustainable economic growth in my constituency—that evidence has been brought to me by constituents. In addition, it would appear to suggest that connected, highly questionable planning practices are also taking place within the Scottish Government, which could also damage economic development in my constituency. I brought those matters to the attention of Sir Peter Housden, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, and reminded him of his responsibilities under the civil service code. I have also called for an independent inquiry into these matters, but all I have had in response is obfuscation, diversionary tactics and a point-blank refusal by a senior civil servant to look into my evidence and complaints—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was the question.

[Sir George Young]

It sounded from the question as though this is a matter that has been devolved to the Scottish Government. None the less, I will raise the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just touched on with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether there is a role for the Westminster Government to play.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

A number of my constituents and 20,000 others across the United Kingdom have lost significant sums in the Arch Cru investment fund as a result of improper regulation. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on this subject, so that they can hear the issues being aired and, I hope, demand compensation?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the campaign being run by my hon. Friend. Many MPs have received letters from constituents who have been affected by that failure. As he may know, the Financial Services Authority is investigating the case, but I will raise his concerns with Treasury Ministers. Although I cannot promise a debate, I hope that I can promise him a letter.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

For the third time in a year, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has withdrawn proposed regulations on ship-to-ship oil transfer in British waters. Given that the reason for the latest delay appears to be a wish to comply with Government policy on simplifying regulation, will the Leader of the House intervene to cut the red tape and help the Minister, if necessary by providing time in which legislation can be brought to the House, so that we can resolve this matter on which we have been waiting for action for almost two years?

[Sir George Young]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise that issue just now in Transport questions, but I will raise it with the Secretary of State and see whether we can cut through the red tape.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) in asking for a debate on the proposed trade union strikes, so that the public have an opportunity to see where this House, including the shadow Chancellor, stands—on the side of the British public, or on the side of the trade union barons who are intent on disrupting our public services and damaging our economy?

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome such a debate, but I cannot provide the time. My hon. Friend will know that the basis for the discussions between the Government and the trade unions is the report Lord Hutton produced earlier this year, which proposes a fairer balance between, on the one hand, the beneficiaries of public sector pensions and, on the other hand, taxpayers. Further discussions are due to take place next Tuesday. I hope the trade unions will respond, and in the meantime I think that it would be quite wrong to go ahead with industrial action.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Given that Harrow council has issued a tender document for the procurement of bailiff services that requires the successful tenderer to pay back to the council 10% of the fee they obtain from the person from whom they collect the debt, may we have an urgent debate on the use of bailiffs, the services provided and the fees allowed, so that this House can express its view on such unfair practices?

[Sir George Young]

The Government have given a commitment to provide better protection against aggressive bailiffs, so I can offer some encouragement on that part of my hon. Friend’s question. On the first part, I will ask Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers whether there is any irregularity in Harrow council seeking a kick-back from any contract that it lets.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will no doubt have been shocked as I was to hear that two senior members of the Ulster Unionist party have been summoned to Orange Order disciplinary proceedings after they attended the funeral of the murdered Catholic police officer, Ronan Kerr. May we have a short debate in which all Members of this House can demonstrate our support for Tom Elliott and Danny Kennedy and recognise the responsible way in which they have offered leadership to that community?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I cannot provide time for a debate but I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both my hon. Friend’s remarks and the support that he had from other hon. Members in the House.