House of Commons
Thursday 13 December 2007
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Public Accounts Commission
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
Corporate Governance
I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission. The NAO review of corporate governance is being led by John Tyner, former chief executive of the Financial Services Authority. He will report to the commission in the latter half of January, and the report will be published in February, as soon as the commission has had a chance to discuss and comment on it.
The NAO’s weak track record in revealing corruption in some arms deals and the economic lunacies of the private finance initiative might be rooted in the opaque and cosy links that apparently exist between it and the private sector. Does my hon. Friend hope that this review will at last allow arm’s length, objective reporting of those areas, fully to expose the activities of rapacious consultants and incompetent top civil servants, whose combined connivance is landing our nation with such murky, inflexible contracts and utterly prohibitive debts?
My hon. Friend will realise that the art of answering parliamentary questions is to provide the necessary information while giving as little away as possible, and I come to that art a little late in life. However, I must tell him that all the points he raises are, in fact, the responsibility of the Public Accounts Committee rather than the Public Accounts Commission. I should add on behalf of the commission that we have found no evidence of impropriety in the expenses of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We have put the expenses on a new financial basis that aligns them with those of permanent secretaries. The NAO has committed itself to full transparency on hospitality received by the comptroller and his senior management board. All that hospitality information and expenses will now be published on the commission’s website, which is a major advance.
Church Commissioners
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Clergy (Security of Tenure)
The legislation to which the hon. Gentleman refers will improve the security of tenure of the clergy and ensure that they are able to exercise the duties of their offices competently.
How would the hon. Gentleman reply to the following comments of my constituent, the Rev. Stephen Trott? He writes:
“Common Tenure is just an empty title, devoid of any stated value, to be defined not by Parliament, which at present guarantees our rights, but by the Archbishops’ Council. In return, every parish will have to hand over its parsonage house, and every incumbent will in due course lose their protection under the law, in return for”—
only—
“limited access to employment rights.”
Father Trott is a constituent of the hon. Gentleman and a member of the Church Commissioners board of governors. He has not yet written to me on this subject, but I am sure he will shortly do so. At the heart of the reforms is the desire to give security to the 4,000 stipendiary and 3,000 non-stipendiary clergy who hold office under time-limited licences. The legislation gives clergy rights equivalent to those that employees have had under section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, as requested by the Government. I will be glad to take up the matter in relation to the Archbishops Council directly with Father Trott.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
The commissioners and the other national Church institutions are committed to the Church’s shrinking the footprint campaign, as part of which they are seeking to understand and reduce their energy consumption and promote environmental best practice.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, and I welcome the Archbishop of Canterbury’s commitment to reducing the Church’s carbon footprint. What impact are the increasing number of thefts of lead from church roofs and property having? Presumably, that is hampering efforts to reduce the carbon footprint, because the Church will incur considerable expense to pay for something for which there might be no budget.
The hon. Lady puts an intriguing question. The world economy is such that China’s taking all the world’s lead is pushing up prices in our country, and lead is being stripped off church roofs. That is an interesting phenomenon, and I might be able to answer that question later.
As the hon. Lady has said, the shrinking the footprint campaign has the personal commitment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose presence at our parliamentary carol service yesterday evening was most appreciated. The General Synod supports this ambitious campaign. The Archbishop has said that
“for the Church of the 21st century, good ecology is not an optional extra but a matter of justice. It is therefore central to what it means to be a Christian.”
"Fair trade begins at home"
Following the report’s publication on 5 November, it was sent to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to Ministers responsible for food, farming and the rural economy. We have not yet received either a formal or informal response, but we shall be in touch again in the new year.
I hope that means that Ministers will be reading the report over Christmas. I hope that it will also be read by all retail managers in the food industry. Will the hon. Gentleman examine the website of the Farm Crisis Network, which is another initiative taken by the Church of England? In parallel with the Samaritans, it provides specialist advice to those in the rural community and to farmers, who are very hard hit at the moment, to encourage and help them through this difficult period.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I know that he represents a large rural community and I congratulate him on representing the interests of farmers from that community. He will know that the Church shares some of the concerns outlined in the “Fair trade begins at home” report, which warns of the powers of the big supermarkets in putting farmers’ livelihoods at risk. He will be pleased to learn that some of the commissioners’ farmer tenants were involved in its production. Ministers have received a copy, and I shall ensure that one is placed in the House of Commons Library.
Electoral Commission Committee
The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
Electoral Register
The Electoral Commission informs me that students are not separately identified as a category on the electoral register, and that it has not made such an estimate.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer, but I find it very disappointing. My information is that about one in five students fails to register. Does he agree that universities and halls of residence should take responsibility for handing out registration forms and ensuring that they are filled in?
The hon. Gentleman might be referring to the Electoral Commission’s report “Understanding electoral registration”, which said that the level of non-registration among students was about 22 per cent. The figure was based on a very small sample from the 2001 census data, no cross-check was done on whether students were registered at their parents’ address and the actual number who are non-registered might be lower. I assure him that the Electoral Commission sees encouraging registration as one of its central duties, and it certainly encourages registration among the young and students.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has come across another aspect of student registration that might well have caused a serious problem had a November election taken place. First-year students coming to university in late September and early October would have registered on the annual canvass, but that would not have got them on to the register in time for the election, whereas students who managed to get hold of a rolling registration form would have been registered in time. That would have caused immense confusion and anger at polling stations had an election been called in November. Does the Electoral Commission have any proposals to ensure that that potential problem does not become a reality?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important and detailed point. The Electoral Commission is focusing on its twin objectives of regulating party and election finance, and delivering well-run elections. One of the aspects that it is examining under the latter heading is the timing of registration, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I should perhaps declare an interest, as I have a daughter who is at university. In my experience, halls of residence automatically register students on the electoral register—at least, they do so in Aberdeen. I campaigned in an inner-city constituency in the Scottish parliamentary elections, and I found that the problem is in the private rented sector, where the electoral roll is often woefully out of date and where no one who lives in a block of flats is on it—many of the people involved are students. Has the Electoral Commission considered whether that is because of the changes in the way in which people are put on the electoral register?
One point that the Electoral Commission has made strongly is that it recognises that the current system involves the head of household registering all those in the household. Of course the definition of “head of household” can vary—it can be based on residence or on halls of residence. The Electoral Commission has strongly urged the Government to move to a system of individual registration, and it regrets that they have so far failed to accept its recommendation.
Church Commissioners
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Equity Investments
The Commissioners do not currently directly own shares in any African listed companies.
I know that my hon. Friend recognises that we in England have responsibilities to help the poor in Africa. Aid is important, but investment, especially in African-owned businesses, is the way to provide Africa with a sustainable means to enable the people to climb out of poverty. Would the Church of England consider establishing a venture capital fund in Africa, in part because of the very high returns that African investments currently provide?
My hon. Friend might like to know that we have exposure to emerging markets equities of some £180 million, or 5 per cent. of our total equities exposure, held predominantly in pooled investment vehicles that are invested mostly in Asia, eastern Europe and Latin America. There is, I have to admit, little underlying exposure to Africa—in fact, well under 1 per cent. of our total equities exposure. My hon. Friend’s point is well made and I will certainly take it back to the commissioners.
Academy Sponsorship
The staff of the Archbishops Council’s education division are in daily contact with the Department for Children, Schools and Families, at both ministerial and officer level, over the development of academies sponsored by the Church of England.
As someone who had a Christian upbringing, albeit non-conformist—good non-conformist stock—may I suggest that the diocese of Chelmsford be advised that being involved in the closure of two community secondary schools and then imposing an Anglican academy in south Colchester is not the way to win hearts and minds?
All the Church of England academies are largely for local pupils and the majority have no faith criteria for admission. Church schools do not set out to convert pupils, but, rather, to nurture, affirm and challenge within a community founded on Christian values. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his educational background, will not disagree with that.
Places of Worship (Theft)
The Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which insures most Church of England churches, has been discussing such thefts with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Archbishops Council, and provides advice on security measures. The commissioners keep a close eye on the discussions.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but with six churches a day being plundered for their lead, copper and even bells, is it not time that the police had a more pro-active and national strategy to deal with the issue? In the deanery of Edgmond and Shifnal in my constituency, more than £25,000 worth of lead has been stolen in just the past four months. That has got to stop and the police have to be more pro-active.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House’s attention to that serious and difficult problem. The Church Commissioners are talking with the Association of Chief Police Officers and take the matter extremely seriously. We have a dilemma in the Church, because we believe that churches should be open, active and well visited, and that that is more likely to deter theft or vandalism. The Churches Tourism Association is working to help to keep churches open and improve accessibility. Without being too humorous, let us hope that China imports less lead, the price comes down and such thievery is not necessary.
Norfolk is one of the worst-hit areas for the theft of lead from church roofs. Why are separate statistics not available for that offence? Does he agree that it would be useful to record instances of that offence separately so that the Government may appreciate the full scale of the problem?
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I should point out that the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group has provided a security marking system free of charge to all churches as well as advice on security matters. In addition to the question of church lead, churches should also consider locking away their valuables, fixing furniture and paintings and encouraging local people to visit the church as part of their daily routine.
Solicitor-General
The Solicitor-General was asked—
Prostitution
Our policy is to consider alternatives to prosecution to help prostitutes to find a route out of prostitution while emphasising the need to arrest and prosecute kerb crawlers. That is part of a strategy to focus enforcement action on the purchasers who create the demand.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which I find reassuring. In areas such as my constituency, where there are two locations where street prostitution is known, people find kerb crawlers to be the nuisance. Many people are sympathetic to the view that driving prostitutes further underground puts women who are already at risk at even greater risk. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government’s strategy is not to make the prostitute’s position even more dangerous?
I can confirm that. I compliment my hon. Friend for taking a long interest in the care of women in prostitution in the two areas of his constituency. I completely agree that crackdowns on kerb crawlers must be carried out in conjunction with diverting prostitutes through appropriate local projects. I am impressed by the strategy employed in my area of Cleveland, where referral workers are available in custody suites and work closely with police and vice units to ensure that women who are stopped by the police can be referred to appropriate services straight away.
Next year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), will visit Sweden and the Netherlands to look at measures introduced to tackle the demand side of the prostitution equation. Will the Solicitor-General consider accompanying him?
I intend to go with my hon. Friend to Sweden to look at those measures and to do the best comparative study that we can, so that we can fully inform ourselves. The hon. Gentleman was on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, so he will have heard my hon. Friend announce that we will review the way in which we tackle demand to see whether we need to be tougher. That trip and other research will feed into the review.
Has my hon. and learned Friend seen the research report entitled “It’s just like going to the supermarket”? It suggests that our interventions with men who buy sex are not particularly effective, and that it would be more effective to reduce the normalisation of the commercialisation of sexual relationships that underpins those men’s belief that they are entitled to buy women’s bodies.
Yes, I have seen that research. Indeed, I attended the launch in Whitechapel. The report contains interviews with a range of different men who use prostitutes. At times during their interviews, they referred to it as being just like going to the supermarket to buy any other commodity. They said that they would not be deterred if it were a criminal offence, but different research suggests that they would be. We must see what the best approaches are, and that is why we are reviewing demand.
Violence Against Women
The Crown Prosecution Services recognises the devastating impact that violence against women can have on victims, their families and communities and, more broadly, on the drive towards equality for women. We will prosecute such offences robustly, and, to that end, the CPS is consulting on its violence against women strategy, which sets out how it will improve co-ordination and the prosecution response.
I thank the Solicitor-General for that answer, but we need to persuade women victims of violence to come forward, bring charges and give evidence if we are to achieve successful prosecutions. In my constituency, we have an excellent track record, with many organisations supporting women to do just that. In the summer, I visited the family justice centre in Croydon, where those agencies are collocated in the same building with police, social services and housing services. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that we should promote new ways of working that will encourage more women to come forward and give evidence so that we can achieve more successful prosecutions?
Yes, I do, and the CPS has been in the vanguard of that approach. Its deliberate policy is to have local prosecutors engage with local voluntary organisations that support women, so that places that are likely to be the first ports of call for victims of domestic violence can be reassured that the CPS is right behind them. My hon. Friend will know that we now have a system of specialist domestic violence courts that are much more understanding of the context in which domestic violence takes place. In addition, there are now a large number of independent domestic violence advocates who befriend a woman once she makes a complaint and who stay beside her all the way through proceedings. We have made progress, and the CPS is truly at the forefront of what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) is absolutely right in what she says. Violence against women is alien to everything that is decent, but will the Solicitor-General accept that the punishment in such cases must be severe if it is to deter violence? I believe that that is the only way for society to show that it is totally opposed to violence against women.
I am very pleased indeed to get such wholehearted support from such a distinguished Member of the House. I agree completely that sentencing must be appropriately harsh so that the very clear message is sent out that domestic violence—and all violence against women—will not be tolerated. There is no offence of domestic violence, so any punishment will depend on the level of assault that finally brings someone to court. However, the domestic violence courts are fully aware of the context in which such crimes occur, and they well understand that a woman is likely to have suffered many assaults before she makes a complaint. I am sure that they contextualise their approach to perpetrators in that way.
Although lots of women come forward and report crimes of violence against them, many subsequently withdraw the complaint. Do the domestic violence courts encourage women to stay with the claims that they make, and not withdraw them?
Yes, they do. The role of the independent domestic violence advocate is literally to befriend the person making the complaint and then to drive the prosecution in the sense of making sure that her interests are represented at all times. The IDVA also tries to take from the complainant the burden of other problems caused by reporting domestic violence. For instance, the woman involved might have to move house or her children, or she might need help with child care if previously her in-laws had helped with that. She can be relieved of all such burdens by the IDVA, who will be a professional with good networks in the public services. It is hoped that a claimant will be sustained by that support and have the energy needed to take a prosecution through.
Attorney-General
The Government’s consultation on the Attorney-General closed on 30 November. We received about 50 written responses and the Attorney-General held a number of seminars and meetings with interested parties. That included a useful session with Members of this House and the House of Lords, to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) contributed. The Government will consider all the views expressed and will announce their conclusions in the near future.
I am grateful to the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General for the consultation, which was very effective and inclusive. The Law Officers often give the Government advice as a matter of course about the interpretation of the law or the meaning of legislative proposals that is easy to disclose. However, on other occasions Ministers present policy propositions to Parliament that they argue are justified because advice has been taken from the Law Officers. Does the Solicitor-General accept that there is now an overwhelmingly strong case that such advice should be published automatically? The most obvious recent, public and famous example of that is the advice that the Government received about the legality of the invasion of Iraq.
I have two points. First, nobody could possibly expect me to pre-empt a consultation that finished only two weeks ago, so I shall not do so. Secondly, the position is far from the way the hon. Gentleman chooses to couch it. No Minister ought to disclose that there has ever been legal advice from the Law Officers, let alone what it was.
Women and Equality
The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—
Imprisonment
I have had many discussions with ministerial colleagues on this subject. As my hon. Friend knows, last week the Government published our response to Baroness Corston’s review, in which we agreed to promote the effective use of community orders and set up projects, which will report next April, to look at alternatives to custody and review the future of the women’s prison estate.
In a report for the Prison Reform Trust, the New Economics Foundation estimated that savings of £18 million could be made if community-based sentences were available for the 2,000 non-violent women offenders who have been imprisoned. Will my hon. Friend hold cross-Government discussions so that we can submit to the review next year a full understanding of the costs and the effect on women and their children? We need to take into account the costs of health, housing, benefits and education, and care costs for children, to show the global cost of imprisoning non-violent women.
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern about the issue and I am aware of her work for a women’s prison in Wales, where there is none. It is one of the issues addressed in Baroness Corston’s review, and it is why the National Offender Management Service put in a bid to set up Turnaround—the demonstrator project for women offenders in Wales. I shall do all I can to ensure that the costs of imprisoning non-violent women for short periods are made as transparent as possible.
Does the Minister agree that the courts should treat men and women equally when sentencing them, and that the best alternative to sending women to prison is for them not to commit crime in the first place?
Historically, men and women have not been treated as equals. At present, women make up 6 per cent. of the total prison population and there are not enough appropriate women’s prisons. I value Baroness Corston’s report, because it could lead us to a new way of treating women offenders.
When women are given a custodial sentence, often it is not just the women who are punished but their children, too. Children often end up in care, and as a disproportionate number of women in the prison system have been through the care system themselves we could be perpetuating a cycle. We must look at non-custodial sentences for non-persistent, non-violent women offenders to keep families together and maintain their stability.
I agree. At present, 8,000 children a year have their living arrangements disrupted by their mother’s imprisonment, even if it is only a short period. That is why Baroness Corston’s review recommended the use of intensive community sentences, and I am committed to them.
Women (Political Life)
The Government are committed to ensuring that our democracy is representative, and that means in local councils, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the European Parliament and the House. The most effective policy for increasing women’s representation has been making it lawful to have women-only shortlists for selection.
My right hon. and learned Friend will be well aware that considerable strides have been made on this side of the House in increasing the representation of women in this place. However, unfortunately, large parts of Britain have still never had a woman representing them directly in this place, in a devolved Assembly or at council level. I should be grateful for her thoughts on what further can be done by Government and Parliament to ensure that women are better represented.
We are committed to extending the legal provision that allows political parties, if they so choose, to increase women’s representation in our democracy by allowing all-women shortlists. When I was first in the House of Commons, there were only 10 Labour women Members of Parliament, but because we used all-women shortlists we now have 96 strong Labour women Members of Parliament, who speak up for women in this country and champion issues such as child care and tackling domestic violence. The Conservative party, which eschews all-women shortlists, has increased its number of women Members of Parliament from 13 when I was first elected to the sum total of 17 now. I want to see more women Members on both sides of the House, but until the Conservatives have all-women shortlists, they will be doomed to fail.
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lady would like to congratulate the council in my constituency. After the recent local elections and a stunning Tory victory, nearly half the Conservative councillors are women—without using all-women shortlists—a woman leads the council and there is an excellent female chairman. Will the right hon. and learned Lady congratulate the Conservatives in Forest of Dean on that excellent performance?
I do want to see more women in local government. I warmly support all the women in local government, who work not only in the economy and public services and among their families, but in the community as local representatives.
Congratulate them.
I will congratulate them. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equality and I are concerned to ensure the proper representation of women of black and Asian ethnic origin. Black and Asian women are chronically under-represented. There are something like 176 women black and Asian councillors in the whole of England and Wales; if black and Asian communities were properly represented, there would be nearer 1,000. We have to ensure that there is proper gender representation in our councils, in Parliament and in the devolved Assemblies, but we also have to ensure diverse ethnic representation, so that this House reflects the communities that we seek to represent.
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that next year is the 90th anniversary of women’s suffrage, which you, Mr. Speaker, are generously hosting a reception to mark. Will she publish proposals for using the 90th anniversary to highlight the contribution that women have made to public life and the initiatives that she will take to increase the number of women in public life?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestion and I will do exactly that. It is not just the numbers that are important. The women Members of Parliament who were elected in 1997, and also in 2001 and 2005, have made a difference to the political agenda discussed in the House. I can remember when there was virtually no discussion of maternity leave, domestic violence, or support for families caring for older relatives. Those things are particular preoccupations of women and their families. Women’s representation has meant that people’s lives are reflected much more accurately in the House of Commons.
Some women are put off becoming MPs because they think that the House has a rather sexist, male-dominated culture, and that the job is all about making speeches and engaging in aggressive debate, although that is actually a small part of the job. Does the Minister agree that, although all parties must continue their own efforts to get more women elected, there is also a need for a cross-party initiative to communicate better the fact that elected politics can be incredibly enjoyable and rewarding, and to change some of those negative perceptions?
I think the important thing is to say to women and men that they should recognise that it is a great honour and privilege to be a Member of Parliament, to represent a constituency and to work for progressive change. It is important that the House should be a team of women and men working together, as the Government are.
Rape
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and the Solicitor-General on the subject. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government recently published their response to the consultation, in which we agreed to legislate to admit videoed statements and hearsay evidence in trials, and find ways to dispel the myths about rape that can influence juries. All those measures are designed to encourage complainants to sustain prosecutions.
Rape victims in my constituency are well supported by Rape Crisis support, but concerns have been expressed about the future funding for such support. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with colleagues about how that funding will be sustained in the future?
Ministers—and this Minister—are very concerned about the issue. I have had, and will have more, meetings with colleagues to discuss the sustainability of funding for Rape Crisis centres. I have also met representatives of the Rape Crisis network to discuss its future funding needs.
Young teenagers who are brought into this country by traffickers, and who are then released by the police, are sometimes worried about giving evidence. Will the Government bring forward a proposal for a number of safe houses across the country in which those women could be protected, and which would allow them to take part in future prosecutions?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that good suggestion, which I will raise in the many discussions that I hope to have on the issue in the new year.
I heard the Minister’s reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). The Minister will no doubt be aware that on 8 January, the funding for Peterborough Rape Crisis counselling group will end after 20 years, putting in jeopardy the fantastic work that the group does for women and girls who have suffered from sexual abuse or sexual crimes. Perhaps she could have a word with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the funding continues, and that Peterborough people, particularly women and girls, have a service dealing with that most traumatic crime.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. In my dual capacity as Minister for Equality and Minister for the East of England, I will have discussions with the Peterborough Rape Crisis centre, and I will look at the local and national funding issues.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) raised an important issue about the funding for Rape Crisis centres, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). My constituents in Berkshire have no Rape Crisis centre in Berkshire, but they access one in High Wycombe, whose funding is also under threat. It may have to close next March. The Minister for Women and Equality has said:
“If the Tories come up with good ideas, we will incorporate them into our policies.”
We are committed to providing funding to Rape Crisis centres on a three-year basis, to give them greater stability in their funding. Will the Government now adopt our very sensible idea?
When the Government came to power 10 years ago, the funding for Rape Crisis centres was £500,000 a year; we have increased that to £3 million. However, I hear what the right hon. Lady is saying, and I will consider the matter in discussions with colleagues.
Government Policy
Once again, I have regular discussions with colleagues across Government on that matter. We are working constructively together to implement the Government’s priorities for women, and I am committed to developing a cross-Government strategy on equalities and implementing our equalities public service agreement.
The women and equality unit was previously part of the Department of Trade and Industry. It was then transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Now it is responsible to the newly created Government Equalities Office, which is an offshoot of the Department for Work and Pensions. Given this game of pass the parcel, does the Minister accept that the public do not believe that the Government take the issue seriously? When will responsibility move again?
I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. What is important is the work that we do, not the structures within Government, which is an arcane and byzantine subject in which most members of the public are not in the least interested.
Flexible Working
We have given over 6 million people—parents of young and disabled children and carers of adults—the right to request flexible working, and more than doubled the number of registered child care places. We recently announced that we will extend the right to request flexible working to the parents of older children.
But is my hon. Friend satisfied that charges for child care are always reasonable? What about the arrangements during the school holidays?
As the mother of five, I understand the problems faced by parents during holidays; that was the moment when my heart sank. We have asked local authorities to assess whether they have sufficient child care for working parents. That, I hope, will help to address part of the problem.
Leader of the House
The Leader of the House was asked—
Members’ Salaries
An announcement on the Senior Salaries Review Body review of parliamentary pay, pensions and allowances will be made in the new year.
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply—not terribly helpful, but a little helpful. The Government have had the SSRB report for six months. Why have they delayed publishing it so that the House can debate the recommendations? As a long-serving Member of the House, I am concerned about the position of all Members of the House and their salary, which should be dealt with fairly. Bearing in mind the fact that the increases over the past five years have been below the retail prices index and the average earnings index, is it not appropriate that the recommendations of the SSRB should be put to the House so that the House can reach a decision?
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I have looked back over what happened in previous years. It generally takes three to six months. That is because all Governments want to give the SSRB report proper consideration. The hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members will have an opportunity to make their views known in the debate in the new year.
Is the Minister aware that I have already made my mind up on the matter? We had a discussion about it last week in business questions. I find it odd that Tory MPs keep raising the matter. I am more concerned about nurses on 2 per cent. and police officers on 1.9 per cent. I have a good suggestion: make sure that the document goes to the Home Secretary so that she can have a look at it. Then she can put it where it belongs.
My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to table amendments before the debate. He is absolutely right that the Government’s pay policy is designed to be fair and affordable and to keep inflation down.
Parliamentary Questions
Ministers are fully aware of their responsibilities to the House in respect of written questions. The Leader of the House keeps the quality of Ministers’ answers to written parliamentary questions under continuous review.
That answer will not do. The hon. Lady may treat the general public with contempt until the next general election, but the House of Commons deserves a better response than that. The hon. Lady, together with the Leader of the House, knows perfectly well that the quality of responses is appalling. Only too often, Departments answer questions that they wish they had been asked, rather than those they actually were asked. I am asking the hon. Lady’s colleague, the Leader of the House, to undertake a proper review of the quality of Departments’ responses. If the right hon. and learned Lady finds that the quality is poor, she should do something about it.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; answers must be accurate, timely and truthful. That is fully set out in the ministerial code, which the Prime Minister reissued in the summer and which reflects the resolution of the House from 1997. The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that the Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into written questions. Its terms of reference are:
“To consider the procedures, scope and rules governing the tabling…of parliamentary questions for written answer;
To examine the reasons for, and the consequences of, the recent rise in the number of such questions; and
To consider the procedures for the answering of such questions and what opportunities are available to Members to pursue answers with which they are not satisfied.”
We look forward to receiving that report and to responding to any recommendations that are made.
Is the Minister aware of the inconsistent treatment of questions asked by Members of this House? I am thinking in particular of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who on some occasions will choose to answer colleagues’ questions but on others will choose to send them to the agency concerned. At the moment, the Institute for Animal Health is being dealt with very poorly; it is expected to respond to some questions, although the Minister has answered others.
I was not aware of that particular problem. If the hon. Gentleman writes with specific examples, we will be happy to look into them.
Long-serving colleagues tell me that although the quality of written answers has not deteriorated since 1997, it has not improved to any great extent. What advice would my hon. Friend give those treated with replies that are cursory to the point of disdain in trying to hide information—replies, for instance, to questions about the entertainment and hospitality record of senior civil servants with the private sector, which I have been pursuing for some weeks now? It should not be necessary to obtain an Adjournment debate or engage in extensive correspondence with Ministers to pursue such issues, should it?
My hon. Friend, a particularly assiduous Member of the House, is right. I am sure he is fully aware of all the routes that can be explored—further questions, writing to the Minister, contacting the Leader of the House and referring the issue to the Public Administration Committee. However, I agree that that should not be necessary.
We will, of course, wait for the Procedure Committee’s report and recommendations. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), for example, has given evidence that fewer than half of questions on tax credits got proper answers, and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) has said that fewer than a quarter of the questions tabled for a named day to the Ministry of Defence were answered on the named day. Performance must improve next year. To link to an earlier question, would the Deputy Leader of the House consider performance-related pay for Ministers that would depend on their performance in answering questions to Parliament?
The hon. Gentleman will be free to make that suggestion in January. As we consider the performance of different Departments, it is important that we take account of the fact that it can vary over time, depending on the sorts of issues that Members are interested in and whether Departments have to answer a particularly large number of questions. One of the things that the Procedure Committee will address is the impact of the doubling or trebling of written questions in the past 20 years.
Oral Statements
Oral statements are one of the most valued and effective parts of the House’s proceedings. The Government have no plans to propose any changes to present procedures, although we are always open to representations from hon. Members on this, as on other matters.
I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House, but I fear that she has not yet caught up with herself, for there has at least been one change recently, and that is the move to notify right hon. and hon. Members some days in advance of the intended date of statements. May I, however, put it to her that the change will remain in practice more symbolic than real if the Government continue their usual incorrigible practice of telling the world’s media the contents of statements well before they inform the House? Would it not concentrate minds if such conduct constituted a breach of the ministerial code?
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that was, as he says, an innovation made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice only at the beginning of this year. I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts he will find that under this Government there has not been a large number of pre-announcements to the media. [Laughter.] There has not. If he has specific examples, perhaps he could give them to me.
Order. Can the Speaker bring a few examples?
I am happy to oblige the House myself with an example that occurred only this week. On Tuesday, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary told The Guardian that every secondary school pupil would have a personal mentor, told The Times that head teachers will have to work with social workers and the police, and told The Daily Telegraph that he would use e-mail and text to monitor pupil attendance. Then he came to the House to make a statement. If Ministers respect Parliament as she and the Leader of the House say that they do, why was this widely leaked before it was announced to the House, and why do Ministers behave like this every single week?
If the right hon. Lady is complaining about the media putting together well researched news stories on the basis of consultation documents and White Papers that have already been issued, that is a matter for her. Had she been in the Chamber to hear the Secretary of State’s statement, she would have known that the House was the first to hear about the allocation of more than £200 million for graduates in nurseries, the decision to allow Ofsted to lead a review on special educational needs, the proposal to spend £220 million on play facilities in 3,500 playgrounds across the country, and the decision to make all schools zero carbon by 2016.
Voting Rights
The Prime Minister set out the Government’s policy to the House on 3 July. The Government do not accept that there should be any discrimination in the rights of hon. Members to take part in the business before the House. English votes for English laws would lead to the break-up of the Union. This Government believe in the Union and will do nothing to harm it. Constitutional issues are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice.
I am naturally disappointed by the Minister’s response. As a great supporter of the Union, does she share my concerns about the growing sense of unfairness felt among English voters about this issue? Surely the Government should be doing something to address it for the sake of our democracy.
I think that the hon. Gentleman tabled his question before the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made his speech in Edinburgh on Monday, in which he said:
“Better an imperfect union than a broken one…if it should ever come to a choice between constitutional perfection and the preservation of our nation, I choose our United Kingdom.”
House of Commons Commission
The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—
Food Allergies
Dishes suitable for those with gluten allergies are identified and indicated on all menus, as are dishes suitable for vegetarians, and healthy options. If applicable, menus will state that dishes contain nuts or traces of nuts, and further training for all catering staff on allergen awareness will begin in March and run through till May of next year.
I appreciate that reply, but like so many restaurants and catering outlets these days, the House Refreshment Department covers itself with a legal disclaimer on every menu that says:
“All of our dishes are prepared in kitchens where nuts are present but not all dishes contain nuts as part of their ingredients. Our staff will be happy to provide further details of dish ingredients”.
Given that well over 50 people working on the Commons estate have a nut allergy, is it not ridiculous to expect them to ask every day which dishes have nuts? Would it not be easier to have a small symbol on the menu indicating those dishes?
I am aware that my hon. Friend is among those who suffer from nut allergies. The House is developing its processes and practices in consultation with experts in the field. If my hon. Friend has some particular point she would like to suggest that would improve the practice, I will be pleased to arrange a meeting with the director of catering.
Leader of the House
The Leader of the House was asked—
Parliamentary Questions
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.
About three weeks ago, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Wales asking him how frequently he meets the Deputy First Minister of Wales, and on how many occasions he has done so since the conclusion of the all-Wales accord. The answer I received was:
“I have met the Deputy First Minister of Wales on several occasions since that date.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 286W.]
That answer was not terribly helpful, but unfortunately it is not untypical of the sort of thing that we receive these days. Is this a manifestation of deliberate obfuscation on the part of Government, or is it simple idleness? It must be one or the other.
I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. If he would like a more specific answer, perhaps he should write to the Secretary of State.
Capital Gains Tax
(urgent question): Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you for agreeing to enable this urgent question to be put, and the purpose of putting the request in this form—
Order. If the hon. Gentleman would just ask the question.
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a statement on the position in relation to capital gains tax policy?
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government’s position on the reform of capital gains tax was set out in the pre-Budget report on 9 October. However, I have subsequently received representations from a number of organisations and individuals with whom I have been consulting, and as a result of which a wide range of proposals have been made to me. Because those proposals cover a wide range of approaches, and in some cases are quite complex, I think it desirable to have further discussions with those groups before I finalise my proposals. It is not now going to be possible to conclude that process until the new year. I can tell the House that when I am ready to make proposals, I will come to the House and make a statement in the usual way.
For the sake of completeness, I understand that the hon. Gentleman, who is the acting leader of the Liberal Democrat party, was moved to ask this question because he saw on today’s Order Paper notice of a written ministerial statement on Finance Bill measures. Perhaps I can tell the House that those measures relate to two types of corporation tax avoidance involving the leasing of plant machinery, such as combine harvesters, tractors and so on, which had a potential tax loss of hundreds of millions of pounds. The written ministerial statement had nothing whatever to do with capital gains tax.
May I explain to the Chancellor why the matter is urgent? It appears that the Prime Minister, no less, and the Chancellor have been separately briefing national newspapers about imminent changes to the legislation. Surely this House should be told about that. I was further prompted by the fact that I understood that the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry have booked rooms this afternoon in order to announce changes communicated to them by the Government. It may be, as is often the case, that there is a terrible breakdown in communication between the Government and the business organisations. It may be that the Chancellor simply did not wish to communicate his findings to the House first. That is the source of the urgency. Does not he agree that the Government made a serious error in not consulting business organisations before announcing the pre-Budget report statement, that that failure to consult lies behind an enormous amount of ill will in the business community and that his standing with business is roughly comparable with that of the Home Secretary with the Police Federation?
Will the Chancellor clarify whether the Government still intend to proceed with their proposal to abolish taper relief, which was a central feature of their policy? Was not the reasoning behind the proposal that it would tackle a specific anomaly in relation to private equity funds? It was realised, once the 10p rate was abolished, that private equity partners would pay less—in some cases, a lower rate of tax than their low-paid employees. The Government introduced the far-reaching change to deal with that. However, is not it also the case that the anomaly remains? The private equity partners still pay a lower rate of tax than their low-paid employees. In the process of introducing those changes, did not the Government create a set of anomalies whereby, for example, entrepreneurs now pay a much higher rate of tax—18 per cent. rather than 10 per cent.—and second home owners can pay a lower rate of tax? Those anomalies have created a great deal of anxiety and concern in the business community.
Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government intend to proceed with the abolition of taper relief? In doing that, have the Government now accepted that their policy in 1998, which was strongly opposed at the time by me and my colleagues and the Conservatives, who appear to have done a U-turn on the matter, was misguided and introduced excessive complexity into the system?
Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to debate the matter as if it were a statement when it is an urgent question. I think that we must now let the Chancellor respond.
Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, his question was not prompted by the booking of rooms. In the normal way, when a request for an urgent question is made, Mr. Speaker has to consider it. The hon. Gentleman saw a reference to a written ministerial statement on the Order Paper. I simply point out that it was made to plug a loophole in relation to corporation tax; it had nothing to do with capital gains tax.
The hon. Gentleman asked many questions about capital gains tax. The Government’s position is as I set it out. We have received a wide range of proposals, and helpful discussions have taken place. I want to ensure that we get those things right and I intend to do that.
rose—
Order. With an urgent question, I have to hear what the appropriate Minister has to say. The Chancellor’s answer leads me to conclude that I will not open up the subject to prolonged questions. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) keeps calm, I will, of course, call Front Benchers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer pretends that it is all a mistake. However, he told the CBI conference on 27 November:
“We are working with the CBI and other business organisations to listen to what you have to say. I expect to publish final proposals in the next three weeks.”
The Chancellor has told us for the first time today that he will not publish those details until the new year, although, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats said, business organisations expected them in the next couple of days.
Is not it the Chancellor’s final humiliation that he has to defend at the Dispatch Box his first and only original tax proposals when everyone knows that, in the next couple of weeks, he will have to announce major concessions and U-turns, not least because the Prime Minister went behind his back and briefed the newspapers? In the meantime, thousands of small businesses and employee share owners do not know what to do or what the position will be next April. He knows what the concessions will be. Why does not he admit what they are and that he has lost, hoist the white flag and say, “I surrender”?
Nice try. I had hoped to be in a position to announce final proposals, but for the reasons that I have stated that is not now possible. However, I will come to the House, as I always do on these occasions, when I am ready to make my proposals.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House to give its forthcoming business?
The business for the week commencing 17 December will be:
Monday 17 December—There will be a statement on the European Council. There will also be a statement on the Poynter review, followed by Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
Tuesday 18 December—Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.
The business for the week commencing 7 January 2008 will be:
Monday 7 January—Second Reading of the Pensions Bill.
Tuesday 8 January—Opposition Day [5th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 9 January—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Thursday 10 January—Topical debate: Subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on armed forces personnel.
Friday 11 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 14 January will include:
Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Education and Skills Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first week back will be:
Thursday 10 January—A debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee on Police Funding.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I extend the warm wishes of all hon. Members to the Clerks of the House, the Officers of the House, the catering team, the cleaners, the police, the doorkeepers and all who keep the House running smoothly? A happy Christmas to one and all.
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. I should like to join her in wishing you, Mr. Speaker, all the staff in the House who provide us with support and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
The right hon. and learned Lady said that there would be a debate on the armed forces on Thursday 10 January, but, given the topical debate on that day, we will have less than half a day for that important subject. It seems that we will now have a part-time debate for a part-time Secretary of State for Defence. Will she rearrange the business so that we can have a full-time debate on the armed forces?
Last week I suggested that the right hon. and learned Lady should select the housing market as the subject for this week’s topical debate. If she looks at the front pages of today’s newspapers, she will see that it is not only a topical issue, but an extremely worrying one for millions for families. Will she now commit to a debate on the economic slow-down, and the problems in the banking industry and their effects on the housing market?
Last weekend the Prime Minister went to Basra, where he promised that the troops would be home by Christmas. Why did he not make a proper statement about that to the House? How many troops will come home? When will they come home? Will they go back if there is trouble in Basra? How many troops will stay to train Iraqi forces? It is to answer questions such as those and many more that we need a statement. Every week the Leader of House tells us that she puts Parliament first; every week her colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, treat Parliament with disdain.
The Pensions Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions want to compensate the 125,000 people who lost their savings after their pension schemes went bust, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor appear to have blocked them. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Cross-Bench Peers, Labour MPs and Peers, Ros Altmann, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and now the Work and Pensions Secretary all now believe that those innocent people deserve full compensation. They did the right thing and saved for their pensions, but lost everything through no fault of their own, so will the Work and Pensions Secretary make a statement on why the Government refuse to compensate fully those innocent victims?
Some 89 Labour MPs have signed a motion calling for the Government to honour the police pay award recommended by the Police Arbitration Tribunal. According to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, 10 Ministers oppose the Home Secretary’s policy. Police authorities in England and Wales have already budgeted to meet the cost and the Police Federation has called it “a betrayal of trust”, so can we have a debate in Government time on the breakdown in the crucial relationship between the police and the Home Secretary?
On Europe, the Prime Minister said this morning:
“I think you’ll find we are leading the way.”
However, he is reluctantly making his way to Lisbon today to sign the renamed constitution, explicitly breaking his manifesto promise not to sign without a referendum. He is too frightened to let the people decide, and too frightened to be photographed with the other Heads of Government. Is this really what the Prime Minister means by “leading the way”?
The right hon. Lady mentioned the debate on the armed forces on Thursday 10 January, and the topical debate on the same day. I would say two things in response. First, she supported the introduction of topical debates, as did the whole House. I believe that they are going to be very important. Secondly, we have five days’ debate on defence as well as Defence oral questions and other statements that are made from time to time. Defence and our armed services are of importance at all times to Members on both sides of the House, and we ensure that they are debated regularly and that they remain at the forefront of the concerns of the House.
On the housing market, the right hon. Lady will know that it is important for that market that we have low inflation, and that people can pay their mortgages because they are able to remain in work and because interest rates are low. She will also know that it is important for that market that there is affordable housing, and that means that there should be a greater supply of housing. If she is as concerned as she says she is, I hope that the Opposition will support our Housing and Regeneration Bill, which will make the biggest possible contribution to the housing market.
The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the Prime Minister and Iraq. Perhaps she will remember that, only yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister answered questions about Iraq, as he does nearly every Wednesday at this Dispatch Box. Indeed, he also made a statement on Afghanistan.
On pensions, the right hon. Lady will know that we have just concluded deliberation in this House on one Pensions Bill, and that our legislative programme contains another pensions Bill. She raised the question of the police pay award, and I want to pay tribute to the police for their important and courageous work. She will know that it is Government policy to ensure that we deal with police pay within the overall context of the Government’s public sector pay policy.
The right hon. Lady raised a range of issues about Europe. She will know that, because the Prime Minister believes in the importance of the House, he was answering questions before the Liaison Committee this morning. He cannot be in two places at once, so he has answered the Committee’s questions and he is now travelling to sign the treaty. She then raised a whole load of other spurious questions about Europe—I know that this is the festive season, but this is supposed to be business questions, not panto.
It is perfectly clear that the Government are not going to move on the vexed question of police pay. I am very sympathetic to the position of the police, because the matter has been to arbitration. How would my friend describe the meaning of arbitration in this context?
My hon. Friend will know that it is the responsibility of the Home Secretary to set the level of police pay. He will also be aware that negotiations and discussions are taking place on a new mechanism for setting police pay fairly; more information will no doubt be given to the House on that in due course. He will also know that, because of the importance that the Government place on the police, there has been an increase in police pay of 39 per cent. since 1997, and justly so. That is 9 per cent. above the rate of inflation. Police numbers are also increasing. There is no doubt that the Government place huge value on the work of the police in this country.
I was tempted to say in response to the earlier reply from the Leader of the House that we could have both business questions and panto, which might be more acceptable.
I am grateful for the announcement of a debate on police funding on 10 January. I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in extending my best wishes and thanks not just to the police, but to all Officers of the House and, of course, to you, Mr. Speaker, as we approach Christmas and the new year.
May we have a debate about the growing number of Government policy reviews? After the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families of four more such reviews, they are now up to 31. As Tony Travers said this week, evidence-based policy is a good thing, but it is necessary to have the policy and the policy making. It would be good to know how the Government are seeking to develop policy and whether Parliament is going to play a part in that.
I understand that the Government were intending to produce the results of their review of electoral systems across the UK, including those used in this year’s Scottish elections, by the end of the year, but that it has now been postponed. May we have a statement announcing the new timetable, as the Leader of the House must ensure that the review does not disappear into the long grass?
The Prime Minister is probably just about to set off to Lisbon to sign the European treaty. Presuming that he gets there and he signs it, when can we expect to start debates on the legislation to implement that treaty? We know that the debates will take a long time and we know that they will be on the Floor of the House, but it would be helpful for colleagues to know—
Some colleagues, like the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), cannot wait! Many of us would like to know when that process is going to begin, as it will require a considerable time commitment.
As we approach Christmas, may we have an opportunity before the break to discuss when the Farepak victims—I know we had a written statement about it yesterday—are likely to receive any money that, following the company’s collapse, they may get? After the Ministry of Justice report showing that conciliation is not working, may we have a debate on conflict resolution in families? Finally, may we have a debate on the important issue of conflict resolution policy in government, especially given that it looks like we may have to be further engaged around the world in Kosovo and elsewhere? The more we can do to prevent and resolve conflicts rather than fight over them, the better. Many of us would view that as not just seasonally appropriate, but the best option all year round.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the number of policy reviews. If the Government are concerned that policy needs to be changed, surely the whole House would agree that they should reflect openly, consult, gather evidence, announce what they are going to do and only then put proposals before the House. Hon. Members would have much more to complain about if we brought proposals for change before the House without announcing or undertaking any review. I know that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that we are following what has been described as the Bercow report and that we are now moving to the next stage of reviewing special educational needs, which is both welcome and important. I think that the hon. Gentleman would also welcome how we are reviewing the way in which child mental health services work with schools. I believe that there is nothing wrong with reviews and that it is right for us to announce the results of them to the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the electoral systems review and I agree with him that the House expected to hear the results shortly. A great deal of change has resulted from the introduction of different systems in Scotland, Wales and England for European elections, local elections, mayoral elections and so forth. All of that needs to be analysed and the results understood before they can be reported back to the House. I will convey the hon. Gentleman’s points to the Secretary of State for Justice.
The hon. Gentleman asked about debates on the Bill to implement the European treaty. I can tell him and the House that as we become fully engaged with the European debates, we will find them plentiful and likely to take quite a long time. I believe that it is very important that as we scrutinise effectively the structural changes brought about by the treaty, we must not lose sight of what is most important to people in the country. They are less concerned about the minutiae of the structures and more concerned about how being a member of Europe contributes to our economy, to our work on climate change internationally and to how we tackle human trafficking. I hope that the House will sometimes be able to focus not just on the structures of Europe, but on what being in Europe means to people in this country.
The hon. Gentleman asked for debate and discussion on the important matter of Farepak. One of the reasons why I chose the subject for this afternoon’s topical debate was precisely in order to allow Farepak to be raised. There are concerns that people with the least money are most at risk when it comes to savings; those with the least money spend most when they are trying to save. That is why I chose the subject of the availability of financial services for low-income families for this afternoon’s topical debate. Farepak is not in the title, so I accept that it was not good enough as a signal to the hon. Gentleman, but I expect it to be discussed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about conflict resolution. He will know that the Foreign Secretary has made a number of statements about conflict resolution—for example, on the Government’s work in Kosovo and other parts of the world. If any further information or proposals should be brought before the House, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will do exactly that.
May we have a debate on local democracy and devolution? I ask that because of the growing scandal in Scotland, where the Scottish National party Government have been interfering in an unprecedented way in the local planning process in support of a development proposed by the Trump Organisation. Should not the First Minister be reminded that the point of devolution was to bring power closer to the people, not to have power devolved to Edinburgh, only to have it taken away from local government and centralised in Edinburgh?
I will take up my hon. Friend’s point with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The whole point of having a Scottish Parliament was to devolve power from Westminster to people in Scotland, not to suck up power from local authorities in Scotland and place it in Edinburgh instead.
Legal aid is currently being extended to bogus asylum seekers, foreign terrorists, imprisoned murderers who want to have children and Ministry of Defence officials attending inquests, so may we have a debate on why legal aid is not being extended to the wives and families of British servicemen who have lost their lives in the service of their country? Many people would want that disgraceful injustice to be aired in Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman might remember that that point was put by one of his hon. Friends in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday and that my right hon. Friend said that he would look further into it.
Following this morning’s announcement by the Post Office on various branch restructurings in my area, could my right hon. and learned Friend find time for the House to debate the Post Office’s handling of the issue? The Westfield avenue branch in Goole was down for closure on the basis of incorrect public transport information, but that closure is to go ahead anyway. The plan for outreach services for the villages of Eastoft, Reedness, West Butterwick and Wroot is to go ahead, but we have not yet heard how or when. This morning, we suddenly find that the Wrawby post office, which was unaffected by the regional consultation, is now up for closure. There is no rhyme or reason to any of that, so will my right hon. and learned Friend please speak to the relevant Minister to ensure that Members are able to debate how the Post Office has acted in our constituencies?
Post offices are a matter of concern to all hon. Members. It is topical at the moment because of the programme of consultation that the Post Office is engaging in, so I will take my hon. Friend’s comments as a proposal for a topical debate in January.
May I reinforce the request of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on police pay? We all recognise that the Government have allowed public spending to get out of control and that they have increased the public sector wage bill to an unsustainable extent. That said, the decision not to backdate is unjust, unwise and mean-spirited. Next week, the House needs to have the opportunity to say so.
I will not add to what I have already said about that, except to say that I remember when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was part of a Conservative Government. Since then, and since we have had a Labour Government, my constituents and his have had more police on their streets, and more police community support officers—and those police officers are better paid than ever they were under a Conservative Government. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee today that he would love to pay the police more, but that he must be certain that we have a growing economy with stable public finances—and that is another thing that we did not have when the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party was in Government.
Could my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate about residential care for the elderly, the provision of which is diminishing and becoming worryingly fragmented? In my constituency, Anchor housing association’s decision to present its proposal to close St. Clements Court in south Kirkby as a fait accompli has caused real anxiety and consternation, as well as some anger. It has become clear that the supply of residential care for the elderly in the area is diminishing, and that the local authority’s role has been significantly weakened. All that is creating some trouble in the local community, and the local authority, as strategic provider, appears to lack the powers necessary for it to step in and fill the breach. May we have a debate about this important matter?
It is indeed important, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. The number of elderly people is growing. We need to make absolutely sure that they have the care and support that they need, and that families caring for them have the backing that they require as well. As my hon. Friend knows, there will be many debates in the House on the Health and Social Care Bill. He will also know of the review dealing with the existing support for carers, including those caring for older people. However, we remain concerned not only about residential care of the elderly but about domiciliary services, and I will raise my hon. Friend’s points with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
During the 1980s, the Libyan Government brought hundreds of tons of guns and explosives into Northern Ireland to help the IRA. As a result, hundreds of people were killed, thousands were maimed, and businesses worth millions of pounds were destroyed. Many of the victims groups have been demanding that the Government seek compensation from the Libyan Government, just as compensation was sought for the victims of the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. This week the groups were informed that the Government did not intend to pursue the case. Will the Leader of the House find time to bring the Foreign Secretary along to make a statement explaining why victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland are being treated differently from victims of the same state in Lockerbie?
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that I raise the issue with both the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary. He could then receive a letter, which could be placed in the Library so that all other Members could also be informed about that important matter.
I strongly support what my right hon. and learned Friend said a few minutes ago about Britain’s membership of the European Union, but I want to raise a different subject. Could she find time for a debate on urban regeneration companies? The centre of my own city of Leicester is being transformed through a combination of private and public sector investment, and similar transformations are taking place in cities across our country. I think it is time the House discussed that success and how we can build on it in future.
My right hon. Friend’s words will find an echo among a number of Members. I think it would be good to examine the important work of urban regeneration companies across the piece, on the basis of experience in different constituencies. I will seek an opportunity for it to be debated in Government time, either here or in Westminster Hall.
The courageous and outspoken Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, cut up his clerical collar recently on the Andrew Marr Show and vowed not to wear it again until the tyrant Mugabe was removed from office in Zimbabwe. When will the Government find time for a debate on the subject on the Floor of the House—and when will the Government of this country, which was responsible for putting Mr. Mugabe in power, take action to save the people of Zimbabwe from the tyrannical rule that they are currently experiencing?
I know that the whole House shares the hon. Gentleman’s concern—a view that was expressed strongly during our recent debate in the House on the subject. He will know that the Government share it as well, that we are working closely with other countries internationally to put pressure—in all respects—on the Zimbabwean regime. We are working particularly closely with the African Union. We are very concerned indeed about the plight of the people in Zimbabwe, and want to support them while also tackling the terrible abuses of the Zimbabwean Government.
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of reports in the media today that a convicted paedophile who viewed online child pornography has effectively had his sentence reduced from life to one year, although he had been viewing level 5 pornography, which involves material involving babies and bestiality. He is also the founder of an organisation that lobbies for sex with under-age children. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that viewing online child abuse is every bit as serious as production and distribution, and will she please make time, as a matter of urgency, for a debate in the House on sentencing for this very serious crime?
My hon. Friend will know of a recent review by the Sentencing Guidelines Council of sentencing for sexual offending. It is extremely important that new sexual offences are tackled effectively as they appear. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that although sentencing is a matter for the courts, the House sets the framework through legislation, and in a current Bill there are further measures to tackle the crime of child abuse via the internet.
Will the Leader of the House make time, as a matter of urgency, for a debate on the audit function of local authorities, with particular reference to the situation in the Greater London authority and the London Development Agency? Some £2.5 million of public money appears to have been given to organisations controlled by associates of the Mayor’s policy director, Lee Jasper, without adequate audit trails or, now, any proper account of where many hundreds of thousands of pounds of that money has gone.
Of course the work of the Audit Commission is important. It is important that the work of all local authorities in London, the Greater London authority and the Mayor is properly audited—as it is.
I wish to complain about the hon. Gentleman tossing out allegations against Lee Jasper, who has done, and continues to do, a great deal of public work. I do not want to hear his name besmirched in the House for party political purposes, just because we are in the run-up to a mayoral election. I want to register my support for the work being done.
May we have a debate on the 20 per cent. Government cut in funding for science research and its impact on science departments at universities, including the one in Liverpool? It follows the merger of two science research councils, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Science and Technology Facilities Council. Surely a cut of 20 per cent. is not compatible with the Government’s wish to support science.
The Government are strongly committed to supporting science with investment in industry and also in educational institutions. I am not sure that the figures given by my hon. Friend accord with my understanding of the position. There has not been a cut of £80 million in spending on physics. One research council—the Science and Technology Facilities Council—has decided to reduce the amount of support available for particle physics and astronomy in universities, but is continuing to invest heavily in those disciplines in CERN and elsewhere. Our commitment to science has led to funding rising from £1.3 billion to £3.4 billion this year. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills to take into account the points my hon. Friend raises, and to write to her to clarify the position.
May we have an urgent debate on the Thames Gateway? Following a recent very critical report by the Public Accounts Committee, which was devastating in its view of how the Government and various Departments have handled the issue over several years, the Department for Communities and Local Government has moved with remarkable speed and efficiency to sack not one of its Ministers, but the chief executive of the Thames Gateway, whom it appointed about 18 months ago, in what looks like a clear case of scapegoating. I would like the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to come to the House for a debate so that she can explain why someone else is carrying the can for the Government’s failure.
PAC reports are debated, and no doubt this one will be as well.
Over the next couple of days, Ministers will be returning from the world summit in Bali, at the end of which there are almost certain to be no binding agreements on targets and no recognition of the urgent action that needs to be taken on the basis of the intergovernmental panel on climate change report on the six to eight-year window of opportunity that we have in front of us. I am surprised that no statement is to be made to the House on Monday by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because that means that there will be no debate on this matter until the new year. Given that the Government’s programme is also ill equipped to deal with the scale of change in that six to eight years, will the Leader of the House not revisit the prospect of such a statement by the Secretary of State?
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to inform the House of the outcome at Bali and how we see the way forward. My hon. Friend knows that we take the view that there should be binding targets for reduction of carbon emissions; that is why that will be in the Climate Change Bill, which will shortly come before this House.
Concerns have been expressed in all parts of the House about the regime in Guantanamo Bay, and I am sure there is a welcome for the fact that the place is at last being run down, but may we have a debate in the House about the extraordinary Government decision to invite five terror suspects, none of whom are British citizens and one of whom stayed here for only a relatively short period, to come to this country, rather than being repatriated to their own countries?
I will bring the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will know that we abhor the Guantanamo Bay regime, which is quite outwith the rule of law, and that we pressed for British citizens to be taken out of there and brought back to this country. As for the five remaining internees in Guantanamo Bay who are customarily resident in this country, I understand that in respect of three of them arrangements are being made to return to this country, but it is of course open to the Government to review their status and their right to stay here on their return.
At 9 o’clock this morning, an outrage was perpetrated against the Hindu community in this country, when a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vet, accompanied by three police officers, went unannounced to Bhaktivedanta manor and put down a sacred cow, which had been nursed by the herdsmen at the manor for 14 months. I must stress that this cow was not contagious in any way and was not diseased; she had a muscle-wasting problem and was nursed for bedsores alone. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the serious concern that this has caused within the Hindu community, and I ask her to take the matter up not only with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I understand that DEFRA was not involved this morning—but with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. This has caused great concern in the community. We have laws in this country against blasphemy, and I believe it is now time for us to have a debate about how to deal with such issues sensitively across the board.
I understand the great concern that is felt on this issue in Britain’s Hindu community, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to raise it in the House. In response, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him with all the background; my hon. Friend can then convey that to the Hindu community, which feels so concerned about the matter, so that it has all the facts and information.
Will the Leader of the House haul the Chairman of the Liaison Committee before the House next week to explain the apparently unreasonable behaviour of his Committee in not allowing the Prime Minister to give evidence to it on another day, thus causing the Prime Minister great embarrassment, as he cannot be in Lisbon to sign the new treaty along with other European leaders?
It seems to be beyond some Members to understand the relatively simple proposition that the Prime Minister wanted to both answer the questions of the Liaison Committee and sign the treaty in person—and that although he has many remarkable qualities, being in two places at once is not one of them.
I listened carefully earlier today to my right hon. and learned Friend’s answers about women in political life, and I wonder whether she would consider holding a topical debate on the issue—and would she broaden it to a discussion of women in public life? I have grave concerns about the number of women being appointed to public bodies in this country, and I believe that there might be some unintentional discrimination against women because of how the criteria are set.
I will look for an opportunity for this matter to be raised in the House. We are committed to ensuring that we get the right decision making in appointments to public boards, whether they are in health, education or industry. The figures show that we have not had sufficient change. About 33 per cent. of public appointments were women in 1997, and that figure has barely risen at all in the past 10 years: it is now only 35 per cent. That is simply not good enough. It is not that women in this country are not good enough; it is that the appointments system is not good enough to recognise the talent and experience that women in this country can bring to public service. Clearly, systemic discrimination is going on in public appointments, and we will have to set some stiff targets and make some progress on that. Inching forward by 2 per cent. in 10 years is simply not good enough.
Farmers in my constituency are dismayed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposals for winter green cover, which will impact on traditional farming methods. Will the right hon. and learned Lady find time early in the new year for a debate on the nitrates directive?
I will bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
May we have a debate about physical and verbal abuse of shop workers, and in particular betting-shop staff—an overwhelmingly female work force, many of whom are expected to accept such treatment as part and parcel of the job? The trade union community has been particularly active in my constituency on this issue. Will the Leader of the House join me in supporting its efforts to reverse the perception that such behaviour is in any way acceptable?
The House should be aware that one of the important things that is helping women at work—and, indeed, anybody who might be vulnerable in their work—is trade union equality reps. The Government have funded a programme of trade union equality reps at work, and I will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform whether there can be some provision for equality reps in the betting industry, so that they can support women suffering from harassment from customers.
Can we have a debate on my early-day motion 317, entitled “Open university”?
[That this House is concerned that the Government’s decision to withdraw funding from institutions for equivalent or lower qualification students will have a disproportionate impact on the part-time sector in general and on specific institutions such as Birkbeck and the Open University; and urges the Government to consider ways in which it can minimise the damage this measure will do to lifelong learning and the delivery of the Leitch agenda objectives.]
Given that 177 hon. Members from across the House have signed it, does the Leader of the House accept that there is growing unease in the House about the Government’s decision to withdraw funding for students seeking equivalent and lower qualifications, and the disproportionate impact that that will have on the Open university and similar establishments? How does it square with the Government’s commitment to lifelong learning?
We are strongly committed to what the Open university was set up to do: to extend educational opportunities to adults and those who might have missed out at school. A range of educational opportunities that were not available when the Open university was set up now exist, and the university remains very important. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could seek a Westminster Hall debate on the issue.
Can we have a debate about the health impact of open-cast coal mining on local communities? People in Kenfig Hill and Cefn Cribwr in my constituency have suffered years of noise, dust, housing blight and environmental destruction. Is it not time for us to put forward the quality of life for local communities as the first priority, before we allow extensions to open-cast mining and the resulting clouds of potentially toxic dust?
The question of how we get the right developments is very much the subject of the Planning Bill, which is a centrepiece of the Government’s legislative programme. As the Bill proceeds through this House, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will have an opportunity to talk about the quality of life criteria that they would like to be central issues for planning decisions.
May I put myself firmly behind the request of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) for a debate on post offices? Such a debate would allow me to point out the injustices of the five post office closures in my constituency and the appalling effect on people in Thatcham. They recently suffered seriously flooding, and they now have the double whammy of losing their post office. This issue is affecting a number of hon. Members in other parts of the country, so a topical debate would be much appreciated.
I shall take that as a suggestion for a topical debate. The raising of issues by Back Benchers from different parties is a key criterion for indicating that there should be a topical debate. The last time that I said that was in respect of Heathrow, about which lots of hon. Members from both sides of the House—especially Conservatives—expressed their desire to have a topical debate. I was just about to arrange one when I got pipped at the post by a Westminster Hall debate, but had that not happened, I would have done so.
The Leader of the House has asked on many occasions for Members’ suggestions on how best to improve topical debates. She may be aware that during a recent debate the official Opposition Front-Bench team used up a third of the time allocated for a topical debate, thereby denying Back Benchers the opportunity to ask pertinent questions. Will she examine that issue? Will she consider a way of restricting Front-Bench Opposition spokespeople from using up that time?
The point of topical debates is twofold. First, they aim to ensure that when a hot topic is being discussed up and down the country, this House is certain to have an opportunity to discuss it. Secondly, they are an important opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to a debate on a topic, and to make their constituents’ views and their own wider views known. I have examined the amount of time that has been taken up by Ministers and the Opposition Front-Bench teams in topical debates, and too few Back Benchers appear to be getting in. That is partly because of Back Benchers intervening on Front-Bench spokespeople, but we must examine the issue. There is no point in deterring Back Benchers from participating in topical debates because they think that they will sit for ages waiting and will hear nothing but speeches made from the Front Benches. I very much want to examine this issue and discuss it with all parties to ensure that we reach a sensible conclusion.
In the abbreviated debate on armed forces personnel, will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that her part-time colleague comes to the House prepared to talk about the military covenant in general and to address specifically the raw deal that service children get from a funding formula that completely fails to recognise the cost drivers that apply to schools with a high proportion of service children? I tried to raise this matter during yesterday’s debate, but unfortunately the Minister for the Armed Forces largely ignored my remarks.
The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that he did have an opportunity to raise that issue in the House during yesterday’s Opposition day debate. I shall take this opportunity to remind him that since this Government came to power in 1997, this country has become the second biggest spender on defence—second only to the United States. That investment has rightly gone into equipment, pay and housing for our armed forces. If he and the Conservatives are suggesting that more should be invested, it is incumbent on them also to suggest how much investment they would make and what they would cut to pay for it. Do they want us to overtake even America in our defence spending?
I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) said. Further to remarks made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), it must have been a black day for Her Majesty’s Opposition when the former proprietor of their house magazines was convicted in the United States of America on charges of fraud and obstructing justice. May I make a bid for a topical debate on standards in public life, to examine, among other things, whether the regulations of the two Houses of Parliament on ending someone’s membership should be brought into line with one another?
My hon. Friend makes a good point. On party funding, he will know that the Government will introduce a Bill to ensure that we have fair and open funding of party campaigns, and that a cap is put on the total expenditure in campaigns so that we end the arms race. I hope that we will find support on both sides of the House for that.
My question relates to column 611W of yesterday’s Hansard and a written answer that I received. I thank the Leader of the House and her deputy most warmly for the support that they have been giving to my mini-campaign. When a Minister’s written answer refers to a written answer given to another hon. Member, I would like a hard copy of that answer to be supplied. I also thank them both for the following written answer:
“It is standard practice to provide Members with a copy of any previous response which is referred to in an answer to a question.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 133W.]
May I therefore ask the Leader of the House to have a word with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)? He provided a written answer that stated:
“The MOD has never provided this information and has no plans to change its policy.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 611W.]
I know that they are overstretched and part-time, but should they not at least listen to the Leader of the House?
When Ministers answer questions it is important that they recognise that this is about accountability. They should answer questions in a spirit of accountability to this House. They should not provide research pointers or clues so that the Member then has to do some more finding out. A complete answer ought to be given. Referring to other questions, to departmental or agency websites or to previous things is not being as helpful as I would like Ministers to be to Members of this House. Being helpful to Members and carrying on with the business of Government are both responsibilities. One of the responsibilities of Government is to be accountable to this House. I totally dispute what the hon. Gentleman said about the part-time something or other—I cannot remember what it was, but I totally disagree with it—but I strongly agree with him about ministerial accountability.
rose—
Order. I am now down to my six regular customers. For me to take them all, they must be very brief.
May we have a debate on the Prime Minister’s busy schedule? The Leader of the House accused us of turning Europe into a pantomime, but the Prime Minister has done that himself. When the rest of the European Union leaders sign the constitutional treaty, they will ask, “Where is the British Prime Minister?” They will be told, “He’s behind you.” If the Prime Minister is signing away British constitutional rights, he should be there—
There we are: some hon. Gentlemen just do not listen.
That hon. Gentleman is not one of the usual suspects, who are much better. I shall sit down and wait to hear from one of them.
May we have a debate on prisons and offender data? Is the Leader of the House aware that Roger Hill, the director of the probation service within the National Offender Management Service, has said that the new computer system—CNOMIS—will be suspended and scaled down for use only in prisons? On the other hand, the Ministers of State at the Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), have said that that is not the case. Who is correct?
I will get my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to write to the hon. Gentleman with the answer to that question.
May we please have a statement next week on the proposed allocation of time for the consideration on Wednesday 9 January of the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, given that one very important matter that we will have to consider that day is the Government’s welcome creation of a new offence of homophobic hate crime, to which—sadly—some misguided souls are strongly opposed? Does the Leader of the House accept that it is in the Government’s and the public’s interest to err on the side of generosity and allow adequate time so that the objections can be fully aired and effectively rebutted?
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support for that important addition to the Bill. We will of course want to ensure that the Government have time to set out the arguments for its introduction and all sides have the opportunity to explain why they do or do not support it. We will take that into account when allocating time for the debate.
May we have an urgent debate on post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic stress disorder, which affect an increasing number of our armed forces personnel? Will the Leader of the House put on record the Government’s tribute to the hard-working staff of Combat Stress at Audley Court in Newport for all that they do for our brave servicemen and women?
The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make those points more fully in the debate on armed services personnel on Thursday 10 January.
I recently asked the Department for Transport how many car miles there were in 1997 and how many there are now. I ripped open the envelope that I received with great joy, but instead of an answer I had been given a 60-character URL. I did not know what to do with that, but my staff did. To add to the insult, the result was given in kilometres, not miles. Was not that done to hide the information from the media? What powers does the Leader of the House have to stop such actions?
I do not accept the implication of some sort of conspiracy, especially in respect of the example that the hon. Gentleman gives. However, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House said, the Procedure Committee is reflecting on the quality, timeliness and accuracy of written answers.
Given the importance that the Leader of the House gives to the quality of written answers, perhaps she could speak to her colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so that the named day questions about his Department’s control of information held on the public that were due for answer two and a half weeks ago could be answered before the Christmas recess.