House of Commons
Thursday 22 October 2009
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Business before questions
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now considered.
Hon. Members: Object.
Bill to be considered on Thursday 29 October.
Manchester City Council Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now considered.
Hon. Members: Object.
Bill to be considered on Thursday 29 October.
Canterbury City Council Bill (By Order)
Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 29 October (Standing Order No. 27)
City of Westminster Bill [Lords]
That so much of the Lords Message [12 October] as relates to the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] be now considered.—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members: Object.
To be considered on Thursday 29 October.
Oral Answers to Questions
The Minister of State was asked—
Mersey Gateway Bridge
The inspector’s report following the recent public inquiry is not expected to be received until the middle of December and its recommendations will need to be considered carefully before the Secretary of State can announce the decisions. A further decision on funding will be taken after that.
May I urge my right hon. Friend to make a decision as soon as possible after the inspector’s report has been received? I remind him of the project’s importance for Cheshire and Merseyside, as it will ease congestion, improve public transport and create more than 4,000 jobs. It will also create hundreds of much-needed construction jobs during its construction phase.
I acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend has played as an advocate for the Mersey gateway bridge. I have heard him ask questions of the Prime Minister and raise the matter in debate, and I have also heard the representations made by Halton borough council. I commend both him and the council for all the hard work that they have done.
My hon. Friend has heard from me the time scales in respect of when we expect to receive the public inspector’s report. He will be aware of the scheme’s complexities, but I assure him that we have taken on board the points that he has made and the sense of urgency that he has expressed this morning.
I understand from Network Rail that it plans to enable around 50 per cent. more rail services to run on Boxing day 2009 to reflect changing travel demands, and I welcome this. As my hon. Friend is aware, Boxing day service provision is a matter for the train operating companies and Network Rail, as the owner and operator of the national network.
The almost full level of service on Boxing day in every other EU country means that people can visit family and friends, attend sporting fixtures or go shopping in the sales. When I met Lord Adonis this spring he promised to contact the train operating companies on this matter. Should not the Government take a more active role in promoting a comprehensive Boxing day service in future?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way that he has advocated the development of services on behalf of the public, but I must advise him that his international comparisons suggesting that this country is unusual in providing a relatively low level of service are misleading. Although Boxing day is a public holiday in England and Wales, by and large it is not in many continental European countries. I know that he understands that the seasonal break is an important time for Network Rail to take possession of busy lines to undertake essential maintenance. Although that will mean that there will be no access to destinations such as Manchester international airport this year, there is evidence of growth in travel over the Christmas and new year period, with 23,000 more trains running in 2008 than in 2007.
The Minister gave the House an interesting answer when he said that services had increased by 50 per cent. So that we can understand that figure, will he say to what extent that represents the normal service on any other working day of the year?
To travel on a bank holiday, British citizens need to know the train operators’ timetables, but the data are licensed as the companies’ intellectual property. Does not my hon. Friend think that the timetable data belong to the people, and that we should make them available for free?
Is it not symptomatic of the culture and mindset that persists in the railway industry these days that Boxing day, public holidays and Sundays are somehow not regarded as days on which people travel, as they were 50 years ago? When are we going to get the seven-day railway that Network Rail promised us? Is it not time that, instead of thousands of people being shoved on to bus replacement services, we had guaranteed rail services on Sunday? To give Network Rail an incentive and passengers a chance, should not Network Rail give a third off the ticket price to those who are forced on to buses?
This Government are the first Government to assert the notion of the seven-day railway, and in doing so, we have had constructive dialogue with Network Rail about the scheduling of maintenance works. Of course, one of the challenges we face now is that we are investing more in our railways than ever before to ensure that they are properly maintained. To undertake those works, the railway must be possessed by Network Rail, which will judge the best time to do the work, which is inevitably a Sunday.
We have asked High Speed 1 to consider the potential development of a high-speed line beyond the west midlands, in particular the potential for the new line to extend to the conurbations of Greater Manchester, Yorkshire, the north-east and Scotland.
It is expected that high-speed rail services to Yorkshire would result in a measurable impact on economic benefits. Greengauge 21, for example, suggests that a high-speed network would create some £6 billion of economic benefit to the region. The Government look forward to receiving High Speed 2’s report on high-speed rail at the end of the year.
It is good to see the Government taking action to promote high-speed railways, but when Network Rail published its report in August favouring the north-west over Yorkshire and the north-east, did the Minister of State notice, as I did, that it had failed to conduct the same economic analysis of the benefits of the north-west route and the Yorkshire route? Will he confirm that the Government will continue to consider Yorkshire and the north-west on equal terms, and to pursue equally claims for routes on both sides of the Pennines?
May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, reassure my hon. Friend that HS2’s outlook is national? It is important that we bear that in mind. Some people would draw on the back of an envelope a line from London to Birmingham to Manchester to Leeds, and that would be their high-speed link. We examine the benefits to all the corridors in our country to ensure that all parts of the country get the benefits of high-speed rail.
Successive Governments have spectacularly failed to tackle the north-south economic divide in any meaningful way. Businesses and politicians in the north-east now believe that one way to tackle the north-south divide is to make the travelling times between the two shorter and bring the two closer together. Those are the priorities for the north-east in terms of high-speed rail. Does the Minister share them?
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the vision we have for high-speed rail. One of the things we deliberately asked High Speed 2 to look into was the benefits of extending the high-speed link to Manchester, Yorkshire, the north-east and Scotland. It is important that, when HS2 reports this year, we consider the report and come back with proposals next year. The alternative is short-term gimmickry to get a standing ovation at a party conference.
The Yorkshire Post this morning again highlights the importance of high-speed rail for the north of England, with its “fast track to Yorkshire” campaign, so I want to ask the Minister: will he promise us a year by which time construction of a new high-speed rail line to the north of England will have begun?
I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution to infrastructure investment. I wish she was as enthusiastic about Crossrail in London as she claims to be about high-speed rail. As for the timeline, we look forward to receiving the report from High Speed 2 later this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is a workaholic, will consider the report from HS2 and, I am sure, come back with proposals as soon as possible. Perhaps, if his infectious workaholism spreads, the construction work will begin as soon as the hon. Lady wants.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady has spent so much time arguing with the Mayor of London that she has not read, for example, the evidence given by David Rowlands to the Transport Committee in June, or the copies in the Library of letters sent by Lord Adonis to David Rowlands, and his responses, which make the matter quite clear. My noble Friend writes in particular about
“the potential for HS2 to extend to the conurbations of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland.”
I undertake to send the hon. Lady copies of Hansard, the minutes of the Select Committee and letters confirming our commitment. I wish that she would make the same commitment.
The percentage of road deaths involving collisions with heavy goods vehicles has averaged 14 per cent. over the past five years—an HGV being a goods vehicle with a gross vehicle weight exceeding 3.5 tonnes.
Of those 40 to 50 lives lost per annum, 15 could be saved if the European Community directive on fitting retro-reflective conspicuity tape to HGVs were immediately implemented. Why, therefore, has my hon. Friend decided to postpone the implementation of that directive until the very last minute, in 2011? The Freight Transport Association said in Commercial Motor last month that the impact on the industry would be “minimal”.
We undertook to look at the impact, which was in the impact assessment that was set out and published, and we found that the actual cost would be between £186 and £388 per vehicle. That would mean a cost to the industry annually of some £16 million to £17 million. We had to assess whether, in the current economic situation, it would be right to impose that cost on the industry, and we decided at this stage not to gold-plate the requirements, which will need to come into force by July 2011. Of course, that does not stop companies fitting the markings themselves. In addition, we will continue to work with HGV drivers through SAFED—the Safe and Fuel Efficient Driving programme —and the Safer Driving and the Driving for Work programmes, for example, on this and other health and safety issues.
A worrying proportion of fatalities, accidents and near-misses involving HGVs on the M1 and A14 in Northamptonshire is down to foreign lorry drivers and foreign lorries. When will the Government take that issue extremely seriously?
For the record, may I make sure that the House is aware of the statistics? In fact, the number of reported accidents involving fatal casualties and side and rear collisions with heavy goods vehicles has fallen. In 2006, there were 183; the number fell to 176 in 2007; and it fell to 148—an almost 16 per cent. reduction—in 2008. Indeed, the number of accidents involving HGVs has fallen further. The steps that we are taking in respect of all HGVs, including foreign-registered vehicles, include an additional £24 million for the Vehicle and Operator Service Agency to undertake further checks on international lorries to ensure that they are roadworthy.
Local Transport Plan
No. Local authorities already have almost complete discretion to invest in transport as they see fit. They are obliged to seek approval only when they are bidding for additional funds from the Department—for example, for major schemes of more than £5 million.
The truth is that there is a box-ticking mentality in the Department, whereby local authorities have to comply with central Government criteria when allocating road improvement funding. Will the Minister accompany me on the protest march along the Berrow coast road this Saturday, when we will be campaigning for the so-called missing link, where there is no footpath or cycle way at all, in aid and support of local democracy over central Government control?
I think that the right hon. Gentleman made a similar allegation last year about the DFT interfering with what Somerset county council wanted to do, and he was wrong then, too. There are a number of ways in which one can obtain funding for transport projects. First, there is the £1.3 billion of capital funding, which has no strings attached whereby we could stop local authorities from doing what they want. Secondly, there is the revenue support grant: again there is no ring-fencing, and no project is subject to criteria. Thirdly, there are local transport plans. The right hon. Gentleman would expect us to be responsible to the taxpayer for contributions of more than £5 million. This is not about box-ticking; it is about ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent properly and we get value for money. I am sure that he would welcome that approach.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out, it is to this Government’s continuing shame that they are killing off so many innovative local transport schemes by national diktat. When will they do what they have done in so many areas of transport, not least in relation to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers)—drop their policy, follow our policies, and allow local authorities to make truly local decisions?
One of the problems in doing what the hon. Gentleman claims to want to do is that his party in Westminster disagrees fundamentally with the Mayor of London on so many issues, whether it be Crossrail, an estuary airport or speed cameras. On funding, the hon. Gentleman should be aware—if he is not, I am again happy to undertake to write to him to educate him—that any major funding scheme below £5 million needs no approval from the Department for Transport. It is right and proper that we have a duty to taxpayers to ensure that money is spent properly, but there is a light-touch approach. When a major project is submitted to the Department, we work with those involved to ensure value for money and deliverability. I do not apologise for ensuring that every penny of taxpayers’ money is spent properly.
The Department for Transport does not hold that data for 1997 or 2008. The deployment of speed cameras and the number in place is a matter for local road safety partnerships.
I am grateful for that rather inadequate answer. The Minister will know perfectly well that the number of speed cameras has almost trebled since 1997. Since statistics from his own Department from 2008 show that only 5 per cent. of road accidents are caused by breaking the speed limit, do the Government not need a broader strategy to reduce fatalities and casualties on our roads, instead of continuing to be a one-club golfer?
The hon. Gentleman has obviously taken his line from his Front-Bench colleague the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), in terms of the idea that there is only one part to the Government’s road safety strategy. It is blatantly clear that that is not so. Our strategy is centred on education, enforcement and engineering. Let me point out that last year, excessive speed remained a contributory factor in 26 per cent. of all deaths on our roads. Although we have had a 14 per cent. reduction overall, which is part of our strategy, excessive speed had an effect in 26 per cent. of cases, involving 600 individuals. I make no apology whatsoever for giving local partnerships the choice in taking forward measures that will help to save lives, which all the evidence indicates happens with speed cameras as part and parcel of the approach, or one tool in the armoury.
Let me add that the Mayor of London—
I will write to the right hon. Gentleman specifically about the requirements of the national strategic network in relation to speed cameras. Speed cameras that assist in slowing people down help to save lives. Indeed, that is endorsed by his own party, in the shape of the Mayor of London, who wrote to the Secretary of State saying that safety cameras had helped with speed and saved 400 lives.
Has the Minister seen research from the university of Liverpool and the department of statistical science at University college London on the regression to the mean effect? Does not that call into question some of the claims made by the Government on the effect that fixed speed cameras have on reducing accidents?
Obviously, one would expect any Department worth its salt to keep the evidence always under review. Equally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of evidence showing that where speed cameras were in place, there was a reduction of up to 42 per cent. in serious injuries and deaths. Of course we keep matters under review, but these measures save lives, and are one of the right ways forward for local partnerships. The change was made in April 2007, so the great announcement recently made in Liverpool that we would end centrally controlled cameras is not correct; that is a matter for local decisions in the local partnerships that are doing sterling work to help to save lives.
Obstructive Sleep Apnoea
The Department for Transport has sought to increase awareness of undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea by including relevant literature in correspondence sent to vocational drivers and operators. It has also undertaken focused presentations to representative bodies, published informative articles in motor trade industry magazines and increased awareness among medical professionals.
I thank my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for their interest in this issue. My hon. Friend will be aware of recent academic research suggesting that one in five lorry drivers may suffer from sleep apnoea. Given that if diagnosed and treated it does not prevent lorry drivers from continuing their careers, but that if undiagnosed and untreated it means they are a risk to themselves and other people on the roads, can his Department commit to doing even more?
May I first put on the record my recognition of the dogged determination that my hon. Friend has shown in campaigning on this issue? I thank her for arranging with me a meeting with her constituents, including the father and fiancée of her constituent who was killed as a result of this problem. I can guarantee that we will continue to work with the charity sector, the medical profession and occupational health to raise awareness. We will review the new Australian research to which my hon. Friend refers when the full evidence is available, and we are taking steps to reissue guidance to general practitioners on the medical form D4.
London Midland has now received 37 new class 350/2 Desiros and retained seven four-car class 321 trains to provide additional capacity. From December there will be five additional Watford peak services to help reduce overcrowding on Northampton trains between Watford and Euston. That has led to an overall improvement in the public performance measure to 90.7 per cent. for the period from 23 August to 19 September 2009, against 86.6 per cent. in the same period last year.
I am grateful for that answer, but is the Minister aware of the local concerns about the urgent need for real, substantial long-term improvements to the train service? There is local anger about the day-to-day management of services, including cancellations, overcrowding and the farcical failure of the train company to get even the announcements on trains right. Will he or one of his colleagues therefore come to Northampton to meet rail users, listen to their concerns and take up the issues of concern to commuters in Northampton?
One of the Secretary of State’s predecessors was in Northampton only in April, but my noble Friend has advised me that if he is in the area he will be happy to meet my hon. Friend and the local rail user group. I assure her that the performance of the train operating company is the subject of regular scrutiny by the performance delivery group, which I chair. We look closely at factors that contribute to any delays or cancellations, whether they are caused by Network Rail or by train operating companies.
Goods Vehicle Testing
In assessing its change programme, VOSA considered the impact on its entire customer base, most of which consists of small and medium-sized businesses. Service criteria have been established, based on independent market research and customer consultation.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Operators will welcome any improvement to efficiency in the test station network, but there is great concern among very small businesses about the likely cost impact when the tests are carried out by a private company. When will he be able reassure them, and when will a decision be made, as to the likely cost of tests under the new arrangements?
The overall policy is to ensure that we have testing facilities that are closer and more responsive to the customer base. Indeed, as my substantive answer suggested, some 90 per cent. of all operators have fewer than six vehicles. That represents the vast majority of VOSA customers, and we are keen to ensure that they are not penalised. There is a £6 premium on designated third-party premises at this stage. We are reviewing that and would expect to see it removed within the next two years.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the position in the Isle of Wight, but overall, we seek to ensure for customers that 90 per cent. of the population is covered by facilities that are within either 30 miles or 60 minutes of them: that is our 30-60-90 rule. Obviously, we will struggle to maintain that in some places, but we will always review the situation and undertake to look for further designated third-party premises.
Ministers and officials within the Department for Transport have regular discussions with the rail industry about the functioning of rail franchises. The Department continues to manage the delivery of obligations of all rail franchise contracts, and officials report frequently on delivery to the Secretary of State.
Are the Government minded to reconsider the length of the franchise offered, particularly for the east coast main line? Does the Minister share my concern about the debt that the company that holds the franchise—the second company to have failed when holding it—has run up with the banks, which of course is now being serviced by the taxpayer? This is a particularly difficult time, so what is he going to do about that franchise?
The hon. Lady raises an excellent point. We keep our options open on the form and length of rail franchises. She is right to imply that a longer franchise might help to support more investment and provide greater stability, but she will be aware that when the directly operated—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but there is a lot of chuntering from Opposition Front Benchers. Clearly—[Interruption.]
I am afraid that the public schools they went to did not teach them manners.
The point is that when the Directly Operated Railways company takes over the running of the line next year and when it comes to retendering, one of the things that we could look into, and seek representations on, is whether the franchise should be longer.
My noble Friend the Secretary of State looks into some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, including rail usage—who is using the railways—and whether there are advantages in how a franchise is run. One advantage of retendering is that we can take on board passengers’ concerns. This is not directly relevant to him, but we recently refranchised South Central and asked Passenger Focus to ask users what they would like to see in the next franchise. I am happy to arrange for the hon. Gentleman to meet officials to discuss what can happen in the next phase in relation to his constituency and his community.
Under the concession agreement, there is a need for a wide range of regular meetings with the concessionaire, Severn River Crossing plc, regarding day-to-day routine operational and maintenance issues, financial and contractual matters, and contingency planning. Issues recently discussed include operational maintenance, planning for events, including the Ryder cup in 2010, and the use of tag and credit or debit cards for Severn bridge toll payments.
The Minister will be aware that users of the Severn bridges can pay by cash, cheques or euros, but not by credit or debit cards, which is particularly incomprehensible for first-time visitors to Wales and causes a lot of inconvenience. Will he reassure my constituents that this long-standing issue is moving to a satisfactory conclusion?
I have been reading the letters that my hon. Friend has written to the Department, and the Hansard reports of the questions that she has raised. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole), has reminded me that he met the Highways Agency as a direct result of her representations. She will be pleased to know that, in parallel with the negotiations with the concessionaire, we have proposed the necessary amendments to secondary legislation to permit debit and credit card payments at the Severn crossing. As a consequence of her representations, the agency has asked the Severn River Commission to consider the feasibility of introducing a variant of the season tag, which would be suitable for regular car-share groups.
First Great Western operates two daily services to Torbay via Taunton that take around three and a quarter hours, and South West Trains operates two slower services via Yeovil that take around four and a quarter hours. The South West Trains services will be withdrawn in December 2009. Few passengers use these services to travel to Torbay from London, and regular faster services are available from London to Torbay by changing at Newton Abbot.
I am not sure that many other constituencies face a halving of their direct line services to London. The Waterloo service is cheaper than First Great Western and is used by people, including occasionally the MP for Torbay to get from the constituency to London. Will the Minister review the situation in the light of the fears of the tourist industry that it will lose custom as a result of those cuts?
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of trains on the Torbay branch line will remain the same, providing access to Torbay. The Department has received no representations from South West Tourism on this issue. If the Liberal Democrats would run rail services because they are totemic rather than because they meet passenger needs, it perhaps tells us something about how unprepared they are to take—
Since our last questions in June, the Department has made a significant number of policy announcements. To keep in your good books, Mr. Speaker, I will keep it short. We have announced a £1.1 billion programme for electrification of the Great Western main line and of the line between Manchester and Liverpool, a £14 million package to transform facilities for cyclists at rail stations and green permit schemes for works in the street in London and Kent. We have published “Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future”, and more details are available on the Department website.
Does the Minister support, as I do, the proposal from the Association of Train Operating Companies that the Crewe to Chester line should be electrified, not least because of its importance to the Cheshire economy and to Crewe as one of the country’s key railway junctions?
I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful question. In the last 13 years, we have introduced a rural bus subsidy scheme that gives more than £15 million each year to subsidise buses that otherwise would not be profitable to run. In addition, we have given more money to the revenue support grant scheme, which means that main buses can be funded. We also fund community transport buses, which leads to a number of buses being run that otherwise would not be run. She has raised the important point that social justice demands that rural communities have buses that run.
In the work that we undertook for what ultimately became the 2003 aviation White Paper, a substantial review was undertaken into the impact and requirements, for the foreseeable future, of the level of air travel within the UK and for long and short-haul flights. I was recently at Heathrow airport, and although we have obviously committed to investment in high-speed rail and to taking that forward, the proportion of flights to Heathrow is 8 per cent. internal and 7 per cent. short-haul—the vast majority of flights are, of course, long haul, which need to be made.
Again this week, there was an article in a national newspaper on the unacceptable behaviour of a senior manager working at Network Rail. I have been raising this matter, along with the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, for seven or eight months. I had a debate in Westminster Hall on the issue, where I asked 14 questions about it. Can I get an answer to those questions?
Industrial relations and staffing issues are between employers and their staff—in this case, Network Rail and its employees. Network Rail is a private company and the Department cannot involve itself in the staffing and operational aspects of the company’s activities.
I have had discussions this week with the Minister for the South West that indicated that the regional funding allocation for the south-west region has been reassessed, and that it is possible now that the majority of the funds for the redoubling of the Swindon to Kemble link can be found within the region. I will certainly be talking with departmental officials about closing the gap.
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. We spend £1 billion on the concessionary bus fare scheme, which enables 11 million people who are either over 60 or disabled to use buses free of charge after 9.30 am and before 11 pm who would otherwise not be able to do so. He makes an important point about access to the railways, and I will write to him to give a substantive response, but suffice it to say that we have spent more money this year on such things than ever before in the history of this Government.
As an old boy, the hon. Gentleman will remember the privatisation of the railway sector. As an old boy, he will remember the privatisation of the buses. As an old boy, he will remember the fragmentation of the public transport system. And he will remember the chronic under-investment in our public transport system for more than 20 years. Over the past 13 years, we have seen a 20 per cent. increase in the use of our buses, a 40 per cent. increase in the use of our railways and investment in the future as well. I am proud of that.
All the regions of the UK get their fair share of rail investment and have done through the life of this Government. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that, within his region, the Northern Rail franchise receives more subsidy than any other train operating company in the country.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is certainly true that there are issues about the national minimum wage legislation that we need to consider. At the same time, we should recognise the international nature of the shipping industry. One of the other achievements under this Government has been a substantial increase in the number of UK-flagged ships in terms of tonnage. I want to ensure that that continues. We are currently having further discussions with the industry and unions about the issue.
We speak all the time to key stakeholders. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that National Express East Coast continues to run the railway. The directly operated company, as a shadow, is ready to take over the running as and when required, and there will be a seamless transition. However, he can write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any time that he wishes to do so.
The Minister will be aware that Norfolk is the only county in England that does not have a dual carriageway linking it to a national road trunk network. Does he share my hope that the public inquiry into the dualling of the A11 from Thetford to the Five Ways roundabout will not push back the timetable for the project? Can he also give me an absolute assurance that—
May I ask the shipping Minister to have an urgent look at pay in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? Last year senior managers were given an average increase of 15 per cent., compared with front-line staff, who got 1 per cent. Surely that is not acceptable.
I have regular meetings with the MCA. There has been a reduction in the number of directors and a change in the provisions. However, we are obviously concerned to ensure that all public sector expenditure not only is in accordance with agreements, but is value for money and delivers the requirements that we need, in this case through the MCA.
Women and Equality
The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—
Equality and Human Rights Commission
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality wrote to the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission on 5 August, setting out the need for the commission to strengthen its relations with stakeholders and to set out clearly what is being done on each equality strand. A follow-up meeting was held on 22 September to discuss the matter. Such meetings will continue.
Given that the Minister for Women and Equality talked on the “Andrew Marr Show” about the need to be able to see the different strands of discrimination, rather than about having an amorphous, overarching human rights concept, will the Minister of State admit that the Government got it wrong in how they set up the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
No, I do not admit that we got it wrong. It was completely correct to bring together the Disability Rights Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, in order to ensure, in addition to the new three strands, that employers and those regulated by the commission know where to go and have only one body to go to. That is completely the correct decision. However, it is also correct to ensure that the underlying causes of discrimination, which can be different for disabled people from those for black and minority ethnic people, for example, are visible and have different solutions, for which the commission can account to its stakeholders.
Are not human rights one of the important aspects of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and do they not underpin the whole approach to discrimination? Having that strand running through the commission is another reason why those organisations needed to come together.
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is an important underlying strand of the work of the commission. As the commission moves forward, it will be important for it to make its work on all the strands much more visible than it has perhaps been in the past, and it has undertaken to do that.
I am not convinced that the hon. Lady has accurately cited what that report actually said. The commission is doing a lot of work on parental rights, for fathers and mothers, but not all the reporting of that work is an accurate reflection of what it has said.
In the interview that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) cited between the Minister for Women and Equality and Stephanie Flanders on the “Andrew Marr Show” on 2 August, the Minister said that she did not favour the Equality and Human Rights Commission using the overarching human rights concept. How does the Minister of State think that it should instead deal with recognising the different strands and with making the commission more effective in combating discrimination?
My right hon. and learned Friend did not say quite what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. However, it is important for the commission to be much more visible in setting out its work on each of the strands for which it has responsibility, as well as its work on promoting human rights. It will be held accountable for that by my Department, the Government Equalities Office, as well as by the wider stakeholder community and others in this House.
In my role at the Ministry of Justice as Minister for Prisons and champion for women in the criminal justice system, I discuss this matter regularly with the Secretary of State for Justice. As of February, there are no longer any women prisoners being routinely strip-searched in women’s prisons in England, and we are investing £15.6 million of new money over this two-year period in existing third sector organisations to divert vulnerable women offenders from custody.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. On a visit to HMP Send, a women’s prison, I spoke to women on the rehabilitation of offenders trust who were helping women to rid themselves of the scourge of drugs. The particular problem raised by the Corston report was that dangerous moment when women are released from prison, particularly when child care problems are involved. What further discussions has my hon. Friend had on protecting women at that difficult time?
I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen the excellent programme at HMP Send, which I have also had the benefit of visiting. It is doing sterling work. Much of the £15.6 million of extra resources to which I have just referred is going to one-stop shops and women’s organisations in the community that have an express purpose and ability to offer personal support to those coming out of prison, and to solve problems with housing and with getting children back to women coming out of prison to prevent them from reoffending. I believe that that will be very effective.
All our prisons have certain difficulties with drug-addicted prisoners, whether they are women’s prisons or other prisons. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a record investment is going into drug rehabilitation and support in our prisons—including HMP Styal, to which he referred—with 15 times more money being spent now than in 1997 on drug rehabilitation, and a record number of people engaging with it. That has to be hopeful for the future.
This Government have transformed support for working parents since 1997—doubling maternity pay, introducing paternity pay and leave, more than doubling good-quality affordable child care places and extending statutory maternity leave from 14 to 52 weeks. Most recently, the Prime Minister has announced new flexibility for working parents, whereby from April 2011, if a mother wants to return to work six months after the birth, the other six months of her leave can be taken by her partner with three months of it paid. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting on the administration of this scheme to make it as accessible as possible for both employers and employees.
I recommend to the Solicitor-General the Conservative proposals for even greater flexibility in parental leave sharing between the mother and the father. Does she agree that that might help to mitigate any negative impact of improved parental leave on the employment prospects of women of child-bearing age?
It is clearly very important to split child care leave between mothers and fathers, not least because if a potential employer is confronted with a man he wants to employ and a woman he wants to employ, he will be unable to discriminate against them if one is capable of having six months leave and the other is equally capable of having that leave if his partner becomes pregnant. The difficulty about the Tories’ leave is that it is totally unpaid.
Well, it is almost totally unpaid. That is very clear. The right hon. Lady would be better off if she explained to those thinking of having their children now that they had better be careful, because those benefits are going to be slashed under the Tory pay cuts ahead.
The right-leaning think-tank Reform has today published a report calling for the abolition of so-called middle-class benefits. Has my hon. and learned Friend been able to consider that report, and does she know the impact on working mothers if we were to abolish maternity benefits?
This issue relates to the point that I have just made. The level of these benefits is such as to provide very good support to working and middle-class people who want to be able to have families and to have optimal choice between flexibility at work and home care. If, as a result of the unhappy occurrence of a Tory majority at the next election, which according to the polls is looking less and less likely—we are now down to a very limited possibility, if at all—these benefits were assaulted and slashed, many of my constituents are very well aware of the dangers that they would face.
Married Couples (Armed Forces)
I have had a number of discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence and met ministerial colleagues to discuss how to support service families. I also recently met service families at RAF Wittering and Swinton Army barracks and plan to visit more bases to discuss service families’ concerns.
There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Defence to allow flexible working for the parent left at home when their partner is on active duty. As a result, the MOD is losing experienced personnel who are leaving the service rather than leaving their children without either parent at home. Will my right hon. and learned Friend speak to the MOD about how best to support serving couples who are also the parents of young children?
This is a growing issue. Commanders are required to manage their personnel in a flexible manner to ensure that family responsibilities as well as military duties can be discharged. As well as supporting the responsibilities of married service couples, it is important to support their families. I pay tribute to the three service families’ federations—Julie McCarthy of the Army Families Federation, Kim Richardson of the Naval Families Federation and Dawn McCafferty of the RAF Families Federation. They work closely with the Ministry of Defence and with us, and they do a magnificent job.
A 20-year-old British soldier is about to be posted back to Afghanistan. He has a wife and children, and the wife happens to be a foreign national. Because the soldier is 20 and not 21, he does not have the security of knowing that his wife and children can come to the United Kingdom. Is that right?
Race Inequality (NHS Staff)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality has no direct discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on levels of race inequality, as responsibility for race inequality lies with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. His Department, however, works with key delivery Departments, including the Department of Health, to support them and challenge them to promote race equality. The Government Equalities Office tackles discrimination in a series of different ways, improving advice and promoting awareness of their rights among employees.
May I ask the Under-Secretary or the Minister for Women and Equality to have those discussions? May I also declare my interest as a diabetes sufferer? The south Asian community is six times more likely than the mainstream community to suffer from diabetes. The discussions are important, because they are the only way in which we shall be able to deal with racial inequality in our health service.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is well known to be a champion of equalities in this context. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the national health service constitution, published this year, puts equality at the heart of the NHS. However, he has raised an important issue, and I know that my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office will wish to continue to discuss it with the Department of Health.
Women in Power: Milestones
The “Women in Power: Milestones” fact sheet was produced in January 2008 by the Government Equalities Office to mark the 80th anniversary of women’s gaining the franchise in 1918 and the 90th anniversary of the Equal Franchise Act 1928. The fact sheet was cleared through internal channels and officials only, not by Ministers. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] It is true, though.
We shall be publishing an updated fact sheet shortly, but there will be a new one today which will interest the hon. Gentleman. It is about black, Asian and ethnic-minority women in public life, because we are now in black history month.
—and the longest-serving Prime Minister of the 20th century, and one of this country’s greatest ever Prime Ministers, would the Solicitor-General like to apologise to the House for the fact that her name was omitted from the fact sheet that her Department published?
It is a pity that she was missed out. I am prepared to go that far but not much further, since she did not do a great deal to advance the cause of women. I really do not think that the hon. Gentleman has a political point. [Interruption.] I have made it very clear that the fact sheet did not come to Ministers. If Members would listen instead of just shouting, they would realise that there is no political point here. The first woman Speaker was a Labour Member, and I am afraid that she was missed out, too. So it really is not about politics, and the hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
In June, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Government Equalities Office jointly published research that examined the impact of the recession on disability, age, gender and ethnic minorities. The report found that over the 12 months since its publication, the employment rate for disabled people fell slightly, from 48 per cent. to 47.7 per cent., which was less than the fall from 74.7 per cent. to 73.5 per cent. in the overall population.
The answer for all people is to make the right investment decisions, as the Government are doing, to ensure that there is no increase in unemployment overall. However, as the Equality Bill takes its place on the statute book, the new socio-economic duty will play an important role in ensuring that the economic outcomes for disabled people are particularly taken into account. That is something for the future that we all deserve.
Business of the House
The business for the week commencing 26 October will be:
Monday 26 October—Remaining stages of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] (day 1).
Tuesday 27 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords], followed by Opposition day (unallotted half-day). There will be a half-day debate on parading in Northern Ireland on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party.
Wednesday 28 October—Opposition Day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on local spending reports followed by a debate on the future of the Territorial Army. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 29 October—Topical debate (subject to be announced), followed by a general debate on the social care Green Paper.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 November will include:
Monday 2 November—Remaining stages of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill [Lords], followed by a general debate on tackling anti-social behaviour.
Tuesday 3 November—Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 4 November—Further consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 2).
Thursday 5 November—Topical debate (subject to be announced), followed by general debate on climate change: preparation for the climate change conference at Copenhagen.
I can announce the Commons calendar for Parliament until the February recess in 2010. We plan to rise for the Christmas recess on Wednesday 16 December 2009 and return on Tuesday 5 January 2010. For the February recess, the House will rise on Wednesday 10 February and return on Monday 22 February. I will inform the House of the dates for the Easter recess in due course.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 5 November will be:
Thursday 5 November—A debate on the report from the Committee on Arms Export Controls entitled “Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2009): UK Strategic Export Controls Annual report 2007, Quarterly Reports for 2008, Licensing Policy and Review of Export Control Legislation”.
The House is grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business.
Last week, when I asked for the parliamentary calendar, the right hon. and learned Lady said she would bring it before the House as soon as she could, but for the first time ever she has announced the Christmas and February recess dates but not the Easter dates. What problems is she encountering over the dates of the Easter recess?
The Leader of the House has just told the House that we are to go into recess over a week before Christmas—that is the earliest the House has risen, as far as I can recall. Back in 1997, we rose on 22 December. That was when the Government had some leadership and some ideas. Our constituents will be working long after the date that she has just announced, and Conservative Members have an unquenched thirst for doing the job we were sent by our constituents to do beyond that date. Is this not further evidence that the Government are running out of steam?
Last week, the Leader of the House refused to answer my question about when the Chancellor would deliver his pre-Budget statement. Can she do so this week?
The Government are committed to replying to a Select Committee report within six weeks. When will the Government respond to the Public Administration Committee report on lobbying, published on 5 January? In March, the Minister for the Cabinet Office wrote to the Chairman of the Committee confirming that the Government would respond very soon. Since then, nothing. When will we get the Government’s reply?
On the related point of courtesies to Select Committees, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government will not consistently turn down the recommendations and findings of Select Committees on pre-appointment hearings?
May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on her Department’s lamentable performance in answering questions over the summer recess? There were three days for tabling during the recess, but well under half of the named-day questions were substantively answered. Given that you, Mr. Speaker, have made it particularly clear that Ministers should respond to questions in a timely manner, is this not somewhat casual?
Today’s topical debate is about securing economic recovery. That is an important issue but, thanks to the Opposition, we had a full day’s debate on it three days ago. In that debate, however, the Labour party fielded only four speakers and ran out of contributors halfway through. Does the Leader of the House not think that today’s time could have been more profitably used by having a debate on the future of Royal Mail or the growing rift between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor? Will she make more intelligent use of these important opportunities for topical debates next week?
Finally, may we have a statement next week from the Prime Minister on Afghanistan? We have long called for regular updates to Parliament, and we welcomed his statement last week. Since then, however, we have learned that there will be a second round of elections there, and additional troops have been called for. Does the Leader of the House not agree that the House should have the opportunity to cross-examine the Prime Minister next week on the security of our troops and the support that will be extended to them?
I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands this, but it is important that the wider public also realise that the recess is not holidays; it is time when the House is not sitting and Members can take the opportunity to work in their constituency. We are rising earlier than usual in December, but we are returning earlier in January.
I will announce the date of the pre-Budget report shortly, in the customary way. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has in the past argued that there should be opportunities to debate the issues raised in the pre-Budget report on the Floor of the House. I am mindful of that, and I will make absolutely sure that, as well as having the opportunity to discuss the economy in the Queen’s Speech debates, there will be sufficient opportunities after the pre-Budget report for it to be debated on the Floor of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Public Administration Committee’s report on lobbying. The Government’s response has been published and the Committee considered it this morning. He mentioned pre-appointment hearings, no doubt in the context of the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner and the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families. Since we introduced this new opportunity for Select Committees to play a part in the appointments process, which gives Select Committees more scope for action, there has been the appointment of the chair of the Statistics Board, as well as hearings on the appointments of the chairs of the Care Quality Commission and the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the chair-elect of Ofcom. There have also been a new Information Commissioner and chair of the Office for Legal Complaints. I have to hand a long list of all the pre-appointments hearings, which I could read out, but the point is that Select Committees are playing their part in pre-appointment hearings. However, it remains the case that under the structure that is in place the final decision is still for the Secretary of State. That is, no doubt, illuminated by the questions asked in the pre-appointment hearings.
On the Department for Work and Pensions written questions, the Deputy Leader of the House will meet DWP Ministers to make sure that there is a prompter response to the House. This is an important issue. All Ministers should respond promptly to Members’ questions about their Department’s responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the choice of subjects for topical debates. I have to tell the House that there were no proposals from any party’s Front or Back-Bench teams for the topical debate this week. I encourage both Front and Back-Bench Members to make proposals for the topical debate. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not choose to debate the Post Office. We did, of course, have a statement on Royal Mail earlier in the week. If we are to make topical debates work, we need suggestions to be made, and I invite him to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about keeping the House updated on Afghanistan. As he said, there was a statement on that last week. As well as answering questions every week in the House of Commons at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister appears before the Liaison Committee.
Last week, I drew attention to the activities of the banks and the fact that they are carrying on with blithe indifference to what they have occasioned in the economy of this country. They are going back to paying their big bonuses, they are unreformed and they are not providing a service to local businesses. That view has, again, been shared by the Governor of the Bank of England during the past week, so may we have a debate on the position of the banks and, ideally, on reform of the banks—something that the Government have clearly decided they cannot face?
Before the debate on climate change, may we have a debate on statistics? Sir Michael Scholar, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, is again calling the Government to account for abusing statistics—this time the official figures for greenhouse gas reductions, which he described as exaggerated. Elsewhere, the energy efficiency figures have been described as “grossly” inflated. We must have accurate figures on such issues if we are to do a good job. Perhaps it was the complacency occasioned by this abuse of statistics that allowed so many Members of this House last night to refuse to allow this House—this Parliament—to enter the 10:10 campaign. Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for this House to debate that again? Perhaps Labour Members will then be able to repent at leisure and decide that they would like this House to join a movement that is crossing the country at the moment.
May I make a bid for one of the topical debates that will take place over the next few weeks? As we approach Remembrance day, it would be entirely appropriate to debate the military covenant. Many colleagues, from all parts of the House, have serious concerns and valuable things to say about the extent to which this Parliament and the country honour our covenant with our armed forces. May we make that the subject of one of our debates over the next couple of weeks?
May we have a debate on police and police community support officer numbers? Although numbers vary around the country and, happily, some forces are still increasing their numbers, other forces are substantially reducing them. The number of police in Avon and Somerset has decreased, and this week we have heard that Somerset county council is, disgracefully, reducing its funding for PCSOs by a quarter. I cannot believe that it is right to cut front-line policing. That flies in the face of what people across the country expect, so may we have a debate on the issue at the earliest opportunity?
Lastly, I am unconvinced by the Leader of the House’s responses on the pre-confirmation hearings. Only one adverse report has come from a Select Committee and it was rejected within hours; unless the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and other Secretaries of State take the process seriously, there is no point in having it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about bank lending practices and bonuses. We take the view that banks must be both building up their capital reserves to make sure they do not pose the risk that they did in the past and ensuring that they lend fairly to help businesses to recover and the economy to start growing again. Lending issues are very important indeed, and the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have made it clear that the Government’s position is that there can be no return to business as usual on bonuses. There will be a debate on the economic recovery later this afternoon and that will provide an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to raise the important issues he has just mentioned.
On greenhouse gas statistics and energy conservation statistics, a climate change debate took place this week and there will a further such debate on 5 November, when the question of Members’ participation in the 10:10 campaign can be raised.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned policing and police community support officer and police numbers. One of the most important things that the Government have done over the past 12 years has been to increase police numbers, to ensure neighbourhood beat policing in every neighbourhood and to ensure that PCSOs work alongside those police to reassure the public and tackle crime. He will be able to ask Ministers directly for more information about that at Home Office questions next week.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the military covenant. We had a full day’s debate on defence last week. I agree that the military covenant is very important, not only for the serving forces and for veterans but for service families. It is difficult at the best of times to be bringing up a family when one’s husband is away from home, but it is even more important if they are in a dangerous situation in Afghanistan. We need to pay tribute not only to our armed services but to their wives and families. That is why I am working with Ministers across Government to ensure that we recognise and support the contribution that armed services wives and families make to the defence forces.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if we care about the low esteem in which our profession is held, one easy win would be to put an end to the 82-day annual recess and sit in September, as we once agreed to do? Will she arrange an early debate on the subject so that we can get the excuses out of the way as early as possible?
We obviously keep under review the balance between the work that Members of Parliament do in the House of Commons and the work that they do in their constituencies. We should not go along with the view that the sole preoccupation of a Member of Parliament once they are elected is to be in Westminster, sitting in the Chamber or working in our Committees. We must recognise, acknowledge and support the work that is done in constituencies. In this day and age, it is no longer good enough for people to be elected and to say to their constituents, “See you again in five years.” They expect us to be working in our local communities and that is why we need to have recess time as well as times when the House is in session.
Should there not be a debate next week on joined-up government following the Chancellor’s statement that it is a very good time to sell state assets such as the Dartford crossing, the student loan book and the Tote, whereas the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was inappropriate to go ahead with the part-privatisation of Royal Mail because there was nobody to buy it? That is not joined-up government.
Further to the request for a debate on bank lending, could we have a debate specifically on mortgage lending? One of my constituents had the offer of a mortgage withdrawn by NatWest within two working days of completion on the basis that the vendors had not owned the property for more than six months. When it was pointed out that that was not even in the mortgage application, NatWest told my constituents that it was in the process of adding it. A debate on mortgage lending in particular and on the banks’ practices in general would be welcome.
I shall draw my hon. Friend’s point to the attention of Treasury Ministers. It is important that there is no reckless lending by the banks, but nor should banks and building societies be turning off the taps for the housing market. It is important that we rebuild confidence and activity in the housing market.
The Leader of the House is well aware that the Government want to get as much renewable energy as they can and wind turbines are one way of doing that, but they are being introduced in areas where they should not be. Nine turbines will be applied for on the levels in Somerset—an area of outstanding importance to the United Kingdom. Under the current Government proposals, the application will be put through. Please may we have a debate to discuss where these turbines should go so that their placing is not to the detriment of the heritage of this country?
It is no good saying that we all want more renewable energy if, whenever there is a proposal to ensure that renewables can be used, Opposition Members immediately raise objections. In the Planning Act 2008, we set out a new framework that ensured we can both protect areas of outstanding natural beauty and get a move on with renewables so that we have energy independence and help with tackling climate change.
The dispute in Royal Mail is damaging to the industry, families, communities and businesses and to the Government’s reputation. I cannot think of a single more topical subject for a topical debate than the future of Royal Mail, so will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for one in next week’s business?
We have to pick the subject for the topical debate on Monday and we knew that we were having a statement on Tuesday on the Royal Mail dispute, so we did not pick it for the topical debate this afternoon. I remind the House of what the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said. In this situation, it is important that both sides get round the table, talk and keep talking until all matters in dispute are resolved. If they cannot find a resolution, they should look to ACAS to help them to do so. Both sides within Royal Mail need to resolve this—they know what the issues are and they know what has to be resolved, and I continue to urge them to do that. I think that that is the right approach.
When may we have a debate on agriculture? I am sure that we are long overdue one. It tends to get crowded out of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. Might it be a subject for next Thursday’s topical debate?
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House—and, of course, the real deputy leader of the Labour party—whether we can have a date on the implementation date for the temporary and agency workers directive? Fairer treatment for vulnerable workers has been the subject of two private Members’ Bills in this House as well as of a joint declaration from the TUC, the Government and the CBI that it would be implemented in this Parliament. May we have an urgent debate on what is going on with the directive? There is considerable anger among Labour Members at reports that it might be put off until 2011.
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the unions that he has worked with on their work on the important issue of protecting agency workers, not only to protect them from exploitation but to ensure that they are not used to undercut the terms and conditions of permanent workers. The Government have issued a consultation paper on the substance of the implementation of the temporary agency workers directive and on the timing of that implementation. We remain committed to it and it will be implemented.
Has the Leader of the House had a bid from the Home Secretary or the Welsh Secretary for a Bill to proscribe the British National party? I hope not, but is not Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, quite right to say that it is for Parliament to make that decision and that people, including Ministers, should not seek to outsource censorship to the BBC?
In this country, we are very proud of our commitment to free speech but we are also proud of our commitment to a diverse community and to being anti-racist. The fact remains that the British National party is a racist and divisive party. Its constitution prohibits from membership anyone who is not indigenously Caucasian. That is an apartheid constitution and has no place in British politics. The BBC has made its decision about “Question Time” and no doubt it will reflect on it once it sees the outcome tonight.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Yvonne Hossack, the heroic lawyer who fought off efforts to get her struck off, is now facing her fourth audit in five years and action from Wolverhampton council to get a civil restraint order and costs against her for standing up for a 106-year-old woman? Will my right hon. and learned Friend organise a debate on the supervision of solicitors so that we can talk about this appalling vendetta against a woman who has championed many of the most vulnerable people in this country, including some of my constituents?
May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate entitled “The Recording of Pecuniary Interests by Members Voting”? She will have read Mr. Speaker’s statement and will know that I, for example, have a pecuniary interest in Equitable Life. There is no way in which Members who are voting can declare that pecuniary interest. It is very unsatisfactory and the public will not understand it. May we look again at how we can record the fact that we have a pecuniary interest in matters on which we have to vote?
At its press conference yesterday, the postal workers union made serious accusations that Ministers were part of the external forces interfering in the negotiations over this unfortunate dispute. Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for any future statement by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to address those accusations?
I think the Secretary of State has addressed the question of his personal role in the matter. He has said that the position he and the Government had taken was that both sides within Royal Mail itself need to resolve this. This is an industrial dispute that needs to be solved by the management and the unions. That is important for those who work in Royal Mail and for its customers and the organisation’s future.
May we have a debate on early-day motion 2067 on Territorial Army training cuts?
[That this House salutes the service of members of the Territorial Army (TA); deplores the freezing of TA training; notes the adverse impact this will have on generic war fighting capability, morale, recruitment and retention; further notes that the measure conflicts with the Cottam Strategic Review of Reserves published in April 2009 which the Government accepted in full; and calls on the Government to reverse its decision immediately.]
The cuts are having a very detrimental effect. In the early hours of this morning, a bomb was discovered to have been planted at the TA base in my constituency. Reserve forces are of great value to the communities that they serve, especially in Northern Ireland. More than 1,000 men and women from Northern Ireland have served on operational duties overseas. May we have a debate on this important subject, to reinforce the importance of the TA to the Army and our country?
I strongly endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of the TA, both overseas—and especially in Afghanistan—and in all aspects of the work of the armed services. Next week’s Opposition day on Wednesday 28 October will give the House an opportunity to debate the Territorial Army.
There have been numerous debates and questions on the matter in the House of Commons. The mission in Afghanistan is a multilateral effort that is important for the people of that country. It is also important for making sure that we prevent Afghanistan and Pakistan from becoming areas that breed terrorism that could threaten security in this country.
Could the Secretary of State for Defence be asked to come to this House to give an urgent statement assuring us that members of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers and other TA units being called up to go to Afghanistan will continue to be paid for their drill nights?
A debate on the social impact of the internet and on digital rights would allow hon. Members to consider the profound changes to how UK citizens access goods and services online. For many people, the internet is now an essential service. Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider proposals to cut people off from their internet connection a challenge for the Government? Should the people who are threatened with being cut off not have the right to prove their innocence in a court of law?
I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on these issues. Increasingly, we recognise that internet communication is a vital and basic service. I note that it is one of the subjects that could be raised in this afternoon’s debate on the reports of the Public Accounts Committee.
Back Benchers in all parts of the House are sick and tired of not being consulted more about the business of the House. A business Committee would go a long way towards solving the problem. If the Committee considering the reform of the House were to bring forward a proposal for such a Committee, would the Government support it?
We have proposed the establishment of the Wright Committee to the House, and we expect a response shortly. It would be rather odd for the Government to explain their position on a House issue before the Committee involved has even reported, let alone before we have had an opportunity to consult widely across the House. The Committee will make an important contribution: we will consult and, if need be, bring forward resolutions for the House to debate and decide on.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Royal Mail’s decision to bring in 30,000 extra staff in the current dispute is an act of provocation? May I renew the call for a debate on the matter next week, and will she assure the House that the Government are doing everything possible to assist in securing an early resolution of the dispute?
Does the right hon. and learned Lady recall that she welcomed the Procedure Committee’s report of July 2008 recommending the introduction of a system of electronic petitioning? A debate was anticipated that autumn, so is it not an absolute disgrace that, 12 months on, we have still not had it? Does she accept that this should be a matter for the House, not the Executive, and can we have the debate soon?
I pay tribute to work that the right hon. Gentleman, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, has done on this matter. It is important that we take forward the option of e-petitioning. I know that people get exasperated by multiplicities of Committees and great descriptions of process, but the terms of reference set by the House for the Wright Committee include giving the public the opportunity to choose the subjects for parliamentary debates. That could be done by means of e-petitions, so the work that the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee has done will no doubt be considered by the Wright Committee. Ultimately, and I hope sooner rather than later, the matter will find its way to the Floor of the House. I understand his concerns, but assure him that he will not have too long to wait.
May we have a debate on the treatment for wet macular degeneration? I particularly want the Secretary of State for Health to explain why my constituent Mrs. Wilson, who has lost almost all sight in one eye, is unable to get treatment for her other eye until its sight has degenerated to 6/12. When that happens, she will lose her independence and her ability to drive.
I will draw that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I know that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approved very important treatment for wet macular degeneration, but I am not familiar with the criteria, under the NICE regulations, that govern the availability of medication. I shall ask Ministers to look into the matter.
May we have a topical debate on global food security? If the current harvests in the horn of Africa and east Africa fail, what is a crisis now will become a catastrophe in 2010. It would be sensible to have a debate to consider how the international community can ensure that the World Food Programme and other agencies have the contingency to prepare for what could well be an extremely difficult situation next year.
That is another matter that can be discussed when the House debates climate change. It is one reason why it is very important that we make progress in Copenhagen, and the hon. Gentleman might find an opportunity to raise the issue in the debate on 5 November.
Like other colleagues, I was lobbied by yesterday by firefighters in my constituency who are concerned about the regionalisation of control centres. Not only has the fire control project gone hundreds of millions of pounds over budget, but the Fire Brigades Union has said that financial resources have been stripped away from front-line services. Will the Leader of the House find time in the House for this much-needed debate which, according to her criteria, is more than topical?
May we have an early statement from Treasury Ministers to explain to the House what they intend to do to resolve the current dispute between the directors of Lloyds TSB and the directors of the bank’s charitable arm, the TSB Foundation? The foundation’s chief executive reckons that if the dispute is not resolved, there are seven weeks to go before she has to wind up the organisation, with a massive loss to charitable and voluntary organisations across the country. Surely that is not what Ministers had in mind when they put £20 billion of taxpayer’s money into Lloyds TSB.
I shall reflect on which ministerial team should look into that question. I am not sure whether it should be Cabinet Office Ministers, who are responsible for charities and the Charity Commission, or Treasury Ministers, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.
May we have an urgent debate on the direct payment of housing benefit? Although it is right for some, for a few people who, through no fault of their own, are disorganised, it is causing chaotic finances, which is especially problematic in the centre of a recession.
I know that the issue is directly connected with the availability of privately rented accommodation for those on benefits. It has been suggested that it has caused a decrease in the quantity of private sector properties available for rent by those on benefits. We have Department for Communities and Local Government questions next week; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
In the light of the Office for National Statistics figures showing that this country’s population will grow by 10 million in the next 25 years, and that two thirds of the increase will be the result of immigration, may we have an urgent topical debate on immigration? It is not the BBC’s fault that the BNP is on “Question Time” tonight; it is the fault of this Government, who have allowed uncontrolled immigration and will not even debate the subject.