House of Commons
Thursday 29 October 2009
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Business before questions
Canterbury City Council Bill (By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Manchester City Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).
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 Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]
That the promoters of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Manchester City Council Bill [Lords]
That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Canterbury City Council Bill
That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Leeds City Council Bill
That the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Nottingham City Council Bill
That the promoters of the Nottingham City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Reading Borough Council Bill
That the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Oral Answers to Questions
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Secretary of State was asked—
We have seen improvements in water quality, more species have been protected, pollution levels are decreasing, and 89 per cent. of our sites of special scientific interest are in a favourable or recovering condition. However, we all need to do more to protect our natural environment, and securing a good deal at Copenhagen would be a very important step forward.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that last Monday night I hosted the fourth annual bat and moth evening in the House. A large number of Members attended to see how those vital species, which are interdependent, are declining. In this year when we are celebrating 150 years since the writing of “On the Origin of Species”, and with next year being the international year of biodiversity, what is he going to do to ensure that in another 150 years, our descendants will not be attending museums and looking at further bat and moth species that we have lost?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on hosting the event, and I am sorry that I was not able to join her for it. The single most important thing that we can do is understand and appreciate more the value of biodiversity, including what it does for us, because it is fundamental to human existence and we have taken it for granted for far too long. It sustains our economy, our clean water and air and the production of our food. We need next year to get a new target internationally agreed that we can measure and make progress on.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the scourge of ragwort is a shame to this country? His Department has issued a code, which appears to be widely ignored. Will he therefore take steps to see to it that this infection is removed from our countryside?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to protect the natural environment, we have to get people to visit it? Has he seen the Natural England survey showing that children’s access to green space and the natural environment has halved in a generation. What are the Government going to do about that?
I have seen that report, and I share my hon. Friend’s desire that more people should have the chance to get out there. The national parks provide a wonderful opportunity for that, and of course the coastal access provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which received its Third Reading earlier this week, will provide further opportunities for young people and others to enjoy the beauty of our countryside.
It is clear that the Government will break their promise to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. In an admission of failure to the Environmental Audit Committee, they said that it was “never realistically achievable”. Now the Secretary of State talks of more targets for some date way in the future. Is it not the truth that there remains a marked lack of will in the Government to reverse biodiversity loss?
I profoundly disagree with that last statement. The Government are very committed. If the hon. Gentleman considers, for example, bird numbers, we have managed in this country to stop the decline that happened between the 1970s and the 1990s. The number of sea birds is up, we have offered protection to Lyme bay to safeguard the pink sea fan and there are otters in every single English county for the first time in 40 years. However, we need to do more, and the point about having a target is that it gives one something to aim for.
Floods (Pitt Report)
The Government published their response to the Pitt review last December. It set out what we had already achieved and what we needed to do to implement the remaining recommendations.
We published the first progress report in June 2009, and it showed that further good progress had been made across the board. The next progress report will be published in December.
Ultimately, the hon. Gentleman knows about the progress on the review of planning policy guidance note 25 and that approximately 98 per cent. of developments follow the Environment Agency’s recommendations. I am slightly disappointed that he has not remarked on the doubling of investment under the Government for flood defences since 1997.
That is an important point and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we set up a new Cabinet Office team to ensure that critical national infrastructure—for example, power stations—is properly protected from flooding. If we are lucky in what may be in the Queen’s Speech—we can never second-guess it—there is an imperative under the Labour Government to get on and deliver the legislation that will give further protection to homes, businesses and infrastructure.
I am pleased to report that that work is well under way. Every time we stand at the Dispatch Box, Conservative Front Benchers harry the Government to do more. They simply ignore what has been done—the £9.7 million awarded to 77 local authorities with the highest risk and potential for surface water flooding; the £5 million currently open for bids to deal with well-known local flooding problems; the £1 million for training, data and other tools for local authorities; and our work on flood forecasting. Sometimes it would pay to stand up and recognise the work that is being done.
As a native of Gloucestershire, I saw at first hand the devastation caused by flooding in the Tewkesbury, Gloucester and Cheltenham area. I hope that the Minister agrees that measures to ensure that that never happens again should be introduced as a matter of urgency. What prospects are there of a suitable Bill in the Queen’s Speech? What assessment has my hon. Friend made of securing all-party support to get it through as quickly as possible?
I assure my hon. Friend that we are very keen to get on. I welcome the fact that at a conference run by Marketforce and the Institute of Economic Affairs as recently as 15 October, my Opposition Front-Bench colleague said that
“we are concerned that a Bill may be dropped from this final session altogether. The Government will have serious questions to answer if, two years after the Pitt report, there is not only no legislation for the water industry but also nothing to address the urgent problem of flooding.”
I can tell my hon. Friend that, through consultation on the draft Bill and through our work, we are keen to get on with it. We cannot presuppose the contents of the Queen’s Speech, but I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, we will have full, solid and cross-party support to deliver the protection that we need for homes and businesses.
May I ask about the property-level flood protection grant scheme? If householders take measures at their own risk in advance of the survey, which is part of that procedure, is it the case that they cannot be paid retrospectively for the work done? That seems unfair. It is no good waiting until it rains before taking the measures needed to protect one’s home.
My understanding is that that is a matter for local authorities, many of which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have applied and bid for the funding. However, I am more than happy to write to him with details to clarify the point that he has raised. It is important, and when people take responsible approaches to their properties’ resilience, that needs to be recognised, but I will write to him.
Local Food Chains
We provide a range of assistance to local food chains, including helping regional and local food producers to overcome various barriers to market. We have funded meet-the-buyer events for both retailers and the food service sector. We also support farmers markets and farm shops, and encourage the use of food hubs and shared distribution facilities.
I thank the Minister for that answer. It is common for people to mouth support for local food chains, but in the past year, two box schemes that I belonged to finished prematurely, which is very disappointing. There is clearly a problem in this day and age. I wonder whether the Government ought to do more, and certainly whether they ought to encourage local authorities to do more.
I am sure that we would want to do more. Only last week I had a useful meeting with representatives from the National Farmers Retail and Markets Association to discuss a range of issues relating to farmers and markets and farm shops. I commend my hon. Friend on the excellent local food initiatives in his constituency. Only last week, officials from the food policy unit in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Gloucestershire to find out more about a wide range of food-oriented activities that are taking place in the county. I am sure that we will be able to use the information and disseminate it to local authorities to improve the situation even further.
Did the Minister hear the piece on “Farming Today” this morning on what is likely to happen to food prices over the next 20 years? I will not try your patience, Mr. Speaker, so may I just ask the Minister whether he will add his voice to mine in seeking a full day’s debate on agriculture from the Leader of the House?
I remember fondly my first week as Minister of State with responsibility for farming, from 9 June, when I believe that we had two debates in the House on agriculture. We would welcome more debates on agriculture. I suggest the hon. Gentleman applies to your good offices, Mr. Speaker, for that very opportunity. We would be delighted to meet him across the Dispatch Box.
As we celebrate British food week, may I tell the House that I recently visited the Anglesey oyster fair in my constituency, where I saw the very best of British food? One issue that local producers raised with me was the barrier to getting into local supermarkets. Is it not about time that we had a proper champion—an ombudsman—to redress the balance in favour of the British consumer and the British producer and away from the supermarket?
I think my hon. Friend has managed to merge three questions into one: the retail sector supporting local produce, barriers to local producers getting into supermarkets and the ombudsman. I can assure him that on the ombudsman, the Government are considering the Competition Commission’s recommendations. I can also assure him that we are doing what we can to ensure that local producers can get into supermarkets.
I have not received any particular representations about this, but earlier this year the Farming Crisis Network produced its sobering report on the impact of bovine TB on farming families. This showed, as we all know, that for those most seriously affected, the economic and particularly the human consequences of bovine TB are devastating. The TB eradication group for England has since met with the executive director of the FCN to discuss how TB-affected farm businesses could be better supported.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he consider the recommendations in the detail of the report, alongside the good work that the Department is doing on cattle movements and testing regimes? In particular, will he look at the impact on farmers whose herds are subject to testing every 60 days? That happens in some cases, and it is a devastating regime for the farm and the family.
I know that my right hon. Friend took a great deal of interest in the matter and I pay tribute to her work on it. The TB eradication group that we have now established is both looking at what can be done to help farmers to try to cope with the disease and getting on with doing effective things to try to tackle it. I have approved all the recommendations that the TB eradication group produced recently. The House will be aware that our TB eradication plan has now been approved by the European Union and funding has been given to us to help implement it.
It is a matter for the TB eradication group to report as it sees fit. Its first report, as I just indicated, has been received, and I accepted all its recommendations. The fact that we are working in partnership now to try to deal with this devastating disease is a big step forward compared with where we were before.
I thank the Secretary of State for that, but has he received any as yet unpublished reports that would help the TB eradication group develop better policies that would assist in reducing the levels of TB in cattle and in badgers? If there are any unpublished reports, can he make them available to the House?
I do not know to which unpublished reports the hon. Gentleman refers. If he is talking about scientific research, that has to go through a peer review process and be published. One of the things that the eradication group is doing is keeping a close eye on unfolding scientific information—that is part of its remit and it referred to that in the report that was recently put out.
I wish to pursue the same line of questioning. Has the Secretary of State yet seen and read the report, which I am told is now available, by vets on the continued studies of the incidence of TB after proactive culling has ended in the trial areas? Will he publish it soon, and then we will all know that the incidence has continued to decline since the culling of badgers stopped?
The publication of that research information is a matter for the journals who publish these things, and it has to be in a form suitable for publication. As soon as it is publicly available, I will ensure that it is placed in the Library so that we may all see what it has to say.
Common Agricultural Policy
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has ongoing discussions on reform of the common agricultural policy with the Commission both formally and informally, including at regular meetings of the Agriculture Council, the last of which I attended on 19 October. The next phase of negotiations will begin informally next year with the new Agriculture Commissioner.
Previously the Secretary of State has acknowledged the difficulties facing hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in the UK, which have not been eased by the implementation of sheep identification tags. Those farmers are deeply alarmed by the DEFRA vision for the future of agriculture. In the context of the recent Calman commission recommendations that Scottish and other devolved Administrations should have a serious input into UK policy making, will he give a pledge that Scottish concerns will be heard before a final British position is taken on CAP reform?
I can certainly give that assurance. We would in no way move forward without consulting all the relevant authorities and organisations. We clearly have our own priorities and negotiating position, which will be mapped out in due course, and they would not ignore such an important sector as the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Will the Minister continue to press for a switch in the CAP from a subsidy for production to measures that benefit the countryside, such as investment in jobs and industry, an enhanced environment and greater access? These are public goods and public money, and we ought to be pursuing them.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We certainly wish to foster an internationally competitive industry without reliance on subsidy or protection. The Government believe that CAP expenditure under pillar two offers better value for money than pillar one because it rewards farmers for the delivery of public benefits, especially environmental outcomes, as he outlines.
The Commission’s draft reformed CAP is reported to include a third pillar on climate change. Farming must play its part in reducing carbon emissions, but does the Minister agree that Lord Stern’s call for people to give up eating meat was totally irresponsible and damaging to our livestock industry?
It is certainly my belief that that is not quite what Lord Stern said. He made a comment that was lifted out and exaggerated. We certainly believe in a balanced diet, and there are many ways in which emissions of greenhouse gases can be tackled. That is not the position of the Government or the Department, and we will negotiate with the Commission to ensure that its position is as close to ours as possible.
It is for individual citizens and consumers to decide what they eat, and we support that. We also support the British agricultural industry and our meat producers. Sir Nicholas Stern’s comments must be looked at from the perspective of the whole piece that he wrote, not just one quote or sentence.
Since November 2008, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has worked alongside the farming industry and veterinary profession as part of the bovine TB eradication group for England. On 8 October, the group published a progress report including a number of recommendations now being implemented. We are pursuing the future use of vaccination through vaccine research and development of a badger vaccine deployment project, alongside our current control measures.
Far too many good dairy cows have been put down in my constituency of Congleton in Cheshire and elsewhere. While I welcome the progress made by the bovine TB eradication group, will the Secretary of State accept that veterinary surgeons who are members of the British Veterinary Association and the British Cattle Veterinary Association believe that he should reassess his criteria for targeting and culling badgers in certain circumstances?
I am well aware that, as the hon. Lady points out, others take a view different from the judgment that I formed and reported to the House last year. For me, the overwhelming requirement has been to take action that will be effective in dealing with the disease. As I indicated earlier, I understand completely, having talked to many, many farmers, how devastating the disease is, but we have to do things that will work in the circumstances. I had to have regard to the scientific advice given to me on the basis of having tried culling.
As I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman previously, there is no simple cage-side test that can be used—[Interruption.] With respect, no test is reliable enough to indicate whether a badger is infected with tuberculosis. However, as I also said to him previously, if someone is of the view that an animal is in such distress that it would be a kindness to put it down, the law provides for that. However, that person would have to be satisfied that the animal was in such a condition.
DEFRA has received two recent representations, one about current legislation to tackle light nuisance, the other about future proposals to address light pollution.
Despite responding positively to the Science and Technology Committee’s 2003 report, the Minister’s Department and the Department of Communities and Local Government have yet to provide a draft annexe to planning policy statement 23 to make local planning authorities take light pollution as seriously as other types of pollution. When will guidance be published so that all local authorities can ensure that light pollution is prevented or minimised?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. DEFRA is no longer involved in the light pollution aspect of the DCLG’s PPS23. The DCLG is now the lead Department on that, and that work is on hold pending its decisions on planning policy reform. However, I am in regular contact with my ministerial colleagues in DCLG on issues such as rural housing, and will raise the matter with them when I next have the opportunity, which I anticipate being next week, and I will ensure that the annexe about which he is concerned is published as soon as possible.
I recognise that the Minister might be the wrong person to ask, given that this matter is no longer his responsibility, but has any model or trial ever been produced with regard to highway or local authority lighting on which we can call?
When the Minister meets his colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, will he remind them of a report produced by the then Department of the Environment called “Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice”? That was published 12 years ago and highlighted the danger of poorly planned lighting schemes in rural communities and market towns. Since then, very little has happened. As an MP who represents a constituency that contains some of the darkest areas in England, the matter is hugely important to me and my constituents.
One of the difficulties is the close relationship between quality of street lighting and levels of crime, which the Conservative council in Bury recently discovered to its cost when it planned to switch off the street lights in the middle of the night. When my hon. Friend speaks to his colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, will he ask them to look at the experiment currently taking place in Toulouse in south-west France with motion-sensitive street lights? Might that not be a model for the United Kingdom to follow?
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that safety has to be taken seriously when considering switching off any lighting. However, that does not mean that lights should not be switched off in some situations. I am interested in the Toulouse experience, and I am sure that technology will provide the answer to those challenges in the future.
When the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I was a member, recommended in 2003 that light pollution be covered by statutory provisions in legislation, the Government agreed. However, local authorities, which regard light pollution as seriously as water or air pollution, can do nothing until the Government, through whichever Department, produce their planning policy statement. When will that happen?
I hope that it happens soon; indeed, that is my understanding. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman strongly that the issue is about safety as well as saving the environment, and there is no easy answer to that. Councils that have considered the issue seriously have often pulled out. I hope that he will recognise that there are many shades of grey in this complex issue. We need to get it right and allow local authorities to do the same.
International Whaling Commission
At the IWC’s 2009 annual meeting, which I attended, it was agreed that the small working group would continue work on the future of the IWC for another year. The support group, of which the UK is not a member, appointed to assist the small working group was unable to complete discussions on possible reform packages in October, but we hope to complete discussions before the small working group in March next year.
On 20 October, British officials met the Japanese Government and expressed continued concern about Japanese dolphin hunts, among other things. I wrote personally to the Japanese Fisheries Minister last week on a range of issues, including whaling, and expressed the British public’s concern about the hunting of dolphins, urging Japan to prohibit the killing and capture of dolphins and other small cetaceans. We also welcome the reports that Taiji in Japan, which is at the centre of “The Cove”—the file and the film—is trialling a no-kill bottlenose dolphin policy.
UK Fishing Industry
My approach to the current negotiations will reflect agreements reached with ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with the UK industry and other key stakeholders on a balance of appropriate priorities. Those will seek to ensure the long-term sustainability of the stocks in question, while maintaining the future viability of the UK fleet.
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but I am sure that he will agree that haggling into the early hours of the morning at the December Council is not desirable. What will he do to ensure that the common fisheries policy is changed to the benefit of Scottish fishermen and UK fishermen as a whole?
My hon. Friend raises a vital point. We need to get away from this haggling until three in the morning in late December. We need to change the CFP, as we made clear in the May and June Councils, where we led from the front. We need to reform the CFP on the basis of good, long-term science, sustainable fish stocks, regionalisation and the long-term viability of all parts of the UK fleet, and away from micro-management, bringing the marine environment and fisheries together. I am pleased to say that we in this Labour Government are right at the forefront of driving that radical change.
I would counter that. I am aware of a perception in certain parts of the fleet and in certain harbours, where it is widely reported that there is a perception of being disconnected. The reality is that we have set up the sustainable access to inshore fisheries—SAIF—project, and we have a ministerial quadrilateral group on quota reform, in which we are engaged and reaching out to others. In all aspects of our work—including CFP reform, the recent launch of which by the Secretary of State was attended by under-10 metre and over-10 metre producer organisations—we will always reach out to the under-10 metre sector. It is a vital part of our communities and our economy.
The fishing industry in Northern Ireland is almost wholly reliant on prawn, and there is a proposal for a 30 per cent. cut in prawn fishing. Coming on top of further cuts in days at sea and cod quotas, that will have a devastating effect on the Northern Ireland fishing industry, which is already in a perilous state. Can the Minister assure us that he will take on board the very difficult situation in Northern Ireland in his discussions in Brussels?
Yes, I can indeed. I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that we are continuing to have close discussions with Northern Ireland stakeholders, Ministers and colleagues. Northern Ireland Ministers play a vital part in our negotiating team as well. I was also pleased recently to meet skippers in Portavogie. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as we determine the package of UK priorities, Northern Ireland will feature strongly in it.
We closely monitor the economic prospects of the sector, with an extensive review made on a six-monthly basis. I am also chairing the twice-yearly meeting of the Dairy Supply Chain Forum on 1 December. The forum regularly brings together all the key players in the dairy sector and has been doing so for several years.
The Minister will know that the UK dairy industry accounts for around 18 per cent. of UK agricultural production by value, is the single largest agricultural sector and is worth £3.5 billion. It is essential to this country, and to my constituency. What assessment has he made of the European Union’s proposal to set up a fund for dairy producers, aimed at assisting farmers under pressure from unacceptably low and unfair prices?
Only last week at the Agriculture Council, we raised our serious concerns about the fund that has been set up, which I am sure would meet the hon. Gentleman’s concerns as well. We have been asking questions, and I also gave evidence on this item yesterday to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). It is not clear how the €280 million is going to be separated and broken down, or what the criteria are for claiming it. We have concerns about that and we are monitoring the situation closely at ministerial and official level.
One of the problems with milk is that the supermarkets often sell it below cost price, which puts huge pressure on the producers. Will the Minister press his colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to look into this as part of the remit of an ombudsman, if they come forward with such a proposal?
The Dairy Supply Chain Forum regularly looks at these issues, providing an opportunity for all sides of the dairy sector to come together. These matters are discussed there. The Competition Commission’s recommendations are being discussed between Government Departments, and I know that this is a key aspect of those discussions. We will be announcing our conclusions in due course.
My Department has received a number of representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public concerned about the effect of pesticides on bees and other pollinators.
An American scientific report on Syngenta’s neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamexotham, shows that it is deadly to honey bees. Does the Minister think that the Warwick university research into bee and pollinator morbidity, which is being funded by Syngenta, will have sufficiently wide terms of reference to assess any links that exist between neonicotinoids and the collapse of UK bee colonies?
The Government take the health of Britain’s bees very seriously and have pumped an extra £4.3 million into bee health. There is no evidence that authorised pesticides pose an unacceptable risk. However, I understand why my hon. Friend asks his question: where somebody is paying, one questions whether the research will be reflective of scientific rigour or not. We will, of course, consider all the research, including that commissioned by pesticide companies, into this important issue, but we will also ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained. I would also quickly say—
Given the international aspects and origin of some of the diseases that affect our bees, how much contact has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the National Bee Unit had with our counterparts abroad?
We are in constant liaison and discussions with a whole range of people on the serious issue of bee health. It appears that there is no one cause, so we are looking very carefully at all the possible explanations, which obviously means that we need clear communications with a range of people here and abroad.
Farm-gate Milk Prices
I have regular discussions with the National Farmers Union, as well as dairy farmers, about this and a range of other issues. I found that the dairy and livestock show in September provided me with a good opportunity to meet dairy farmers and hear first hand about the challenges they are facing.
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but I would like to press him a little on the European emergency milk fund, which was mentioned earlier. If the problems that were mentioned are ironed out, would he in principle do something to support dairy farmers here, who are really struggling to survive?
The British herd of dairy cows is down by more than a fifth since 1997, and the number of dairy farms has halved since 2000. Will the Minister explain why dairy farmers should believe that this Government remain committed to UK production?
By virtue, I hope, of our performance and, in particular, of our negotiating stance in Europe, which is about defending the British dairy industry; and by virtue of the contact and connections, and the support and advice that we give, here in the UK. The Dairy Supply Chain Forum, which I chair, is another indication that we are doing what we can to support our industry. Our industry has innovated and it is rationalised; it is in a better position than that of our European counterparts. We hope that it goes from strength to strength, and we will do all we can to support that.
No recent representations have been received on the activities of British Waterways in the Stoke-on-Trent area. However, I understand that British Waterways, the local regional development agency and other partners are working together on a variety of projects in the area, reflecting the importance of partnership in working to achieve our shared goals of getting the best from our waterways.
In anticipation of the representations that the Minister will receive from the Burslem port project, may I welcome the investment in canals? However, will he give his active support in that partnership working to the plans to bring the arm of the Trent and Mersey canal back into use at Burslem port? We want to see the volunteer scheme, which is about to clear the site, matched by a firm commitment from British Waterways to find a way of getting a realistic and feasible business package for it.
I am very happy to pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s sterling role in advocating the canals that are so important to her area. In fact, I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss the issue further. Ultimately, it is a question of British Waterways and its partners getting on with the business on the ground, identifying the priorities and driving them forward. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with my hon. Friend.
Is the Minister aware that studies have shown that the existence of canals can increase economic activity by some 300 per cent. in the areas they serve? What help can he give to the Litchfield and Hatherton canal restoration trust, which will provide the much-needed link between canals in the east and the centre parts of the west midlands?
The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. Through our work with British Waterways, the Broads Authority, the inlands waterways authorities and others we have made it clear that we recognise the wider public benefits of canals, not just in terms of recreational boating but, for instance, of health, education and awareness of nature. Again, I do not want to interfere in individual projects—it is important for them to take place on the ground—but I am always happy to meet Members who feel passionate about their own areas.
Does the Minister share my concern about the fact that Rudyard Sailability and its centre of excellence for disabled sailors at Rudyard lake is still being blocked from building the boat store that is essential to its survival, despite its victory in a public inquiry nine months ago? Will he urge British Waterways, which owns Rudyard lake, to promote talks to save a vital charity that transforms the lives of so many people and their families?
I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend does as a trustee of RYA Sailability, and we have corresponded on the issue she has raised. The organisation does sterling work in encouraging people of all abilities to participate in sailing activities. I understand that the matter is currently being discussed by the parties involved, and I hope that it will be resolved speedily. I gather that a local British Waterways manager is still helping to broker a solution and will keep my hon. Friend fully informed of the state of the negotiations, but I am happy to discuss the matter further with her.
As well as continuing its annual programme of maintenance for the main rivers in Oxford, West and Abingdon to manage flood risk, the Environment Agency is nearing the completion of a £1.8 million programme of short-term measures for Oxford, and is developing the long-term Oxford flood risk management strategy, which is currently out for consultation. A study on the River Stert in Abingdon is also taking place to identify options to alleviate flooding.
As the Secretary of State will know, both west Oxford and Abingdon were badly affected. My constituents appreciated his visit during the floods, and I recognise the work that has been done, but will he agree to meet members of the flood action group and me, with the Environment Agency, so that those people can be reassured that progress will be made before the next flood—which will happen?
I wish to inform the House that following routine inventory checks earlier this year, 38 Rural Payments Agency data back-up tapes and one compact disc were unaccounted for. Thirty-five have now been accounted for. Of the rest, one tape and the CD did not contain personal protected data, but the two remaining tapes potentially contained partial data in code. However, tapes of this sort can only be read with specialist equipment and detailed technical knowledge. Furthermore, one of the two tapes was known to be faulty and had been reported as such, since it could not be read.
I want to reassure farmers that there is no evidence that the tapes are in the public domain, that a forensic investigation was carried out in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, and that officials concluded that there was only a low risk that any usable personal data had been lost. I will arrange for further information, including a copy of the investigation report, to be placed in the Library of the House.
I am pleased to be able to update the hon. Gentleman on discussions that we had as recently as the week before last, following the announcement made at the Labour party conference. There has been a very good response. We will introduce a concessionary scheme, subject to legislative opportunities and also to guidance. I think it important for us to get the details right, so that the right organisations benefit from the scheme. It will not be a simple top-down approach; we will be asking people for their thoughts as well.
I am happy to accept the prompts of my right hon. Friend and to ensure that we communicate her comments and our view—which is clearly the view of the House—to Sir Nicholas Stern.
One of the things that I ought to have mentioned earlier is that dealing with the waste of 30 to 40 per cent. of all the food that we buy from supermarkets is a far more crucial way of dealing with the problem of emissions. We should be focusing on that.
The reason why the Secretary of State has suddenly announced another data loss by the Government is that Farmers Weekly obtained the information and will report it tomorrow. If the loss was discovered earlier this year and an investigation done, as the Secretary of State said, why have the public not been told until now? This looks like a cover-up. Will he accept responsibility for another foul-up by the Rural Payments Agency, which has already cost taxpayers £70 million in EU fines because of its bungling?
I of course accept responsibility. I was informed yesterday and I thought it important to take the first possible opportunity to inform the House, which is what I have done this morning. In accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, a full investigation was done. As the data were in code that cannot be read, as I have indicated, a judgment was made in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines that Ministers need not be informed. I wanted to reassure farmers today that the risk of this information getting out is very low, for the reason I have explained to the House at the first available opportunity.
The announcement about what the Scout Association called the rain tax was very welcome, especially in the north-west. However, in applying discretionary relief, will my hon. Friend take note of the plight of all political clubs? If the scheme is applied to such clubs, as originally intended, it might result in further closures. I do, of course, declare an interest in this question.
First, I cannot guarantee anything at this moment. The Government are committed to bringing forward proposals on a discretionary scheme at the first available legislative opportunity, and that has been widely welcomed. I would not want to go into detail but I am glad that we have support for this right across the House. We will need to go into detail about who is and is not included, but it is important to acknowledge that this is a cost-neutral issue and, as such, the cost must fall on someone, somewhere—whether that is businesses, individual households or others.
I take responsibility; that is my job. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the history of the RPA is not a happy one. Since I took up this position, the one thing I have made clear to the Department and to the RPA is that the agency must maintain the improvement it has achieved—we should acknowledge that—in getting payments to farmers more speedily, given the unhappy past. I am not prepared to do anything that gets in the way of doing that, because what farmers want is to get the payments as quickly as possible. There have been previous occasions on which the House has invited me to do things in relation to the RPA, but I am not prepared to put in jeopardy that progress from what was a mess.
Has the Secretary of State seen the League Against Cruel Sports large-scale survey indicating that 62 per cent. of Conservative voters, 77 per cent. of Liberal Democrat voters and 83 per cent. of Labour voters strongly support the existing legislative ban on hunting with dogs? Does he intend to review the legislation in light of the survey?
I have indeed seen the information to which my hon. Friend refers, and it shows where public sentiment and opinion lie. In the light of that, I find it very hard to understand why Opposition Members want to change the law so that foxes can once again be ripped to pieces by hounds, because that is the change in the law they appear to be seeking.
I would be very happy if the hon. Gentleman gave me the details of his constituent, in order to pursue that case. It is precisely for this reason that we announced in September a review of the RPA, so we can learn the lessons and improve the service to the level that farmers have a right to expect.
I am not aware of a study having been done on that. We should be aware, however, that when the ban was voted on a lot of predictions were made about the consequences that would flow, but they have not flowed, which is why I do not agree with those who say the legislation is flawed. The onus is on those who want to revisit it to explain why they want to return to a practice that most people do not approve of, as is shown by the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has just drawn to the House’s attention.
Indeed, and in this 60th year it is right that we look to the future of the national parks. That is why we are working very hard with the national parks authorities and other agencies to look forward and shape a vision for the future. I suspect that that vision will be concerned with access, sustainable ways of living, living and breathing communities and climate change. The national parks have a critical role to play in the future of this country, and re-imagining what the next 60 years will be like is part of the current review.
The hon. Lady rightly raises this concern about any reduction in the protection and safeguards against infection from other countries. That is uppermost in the Government’s mind. As she has outlined, we are in discussions with the Commission about extending our derogation for an extra 12 months, and these matters are under very close scrutiny.
As I outlined in one of my earlier answers, the Department convenes a number of forums to allow farmers to engage directly with DEFRA and others to discuss these very issues. As I have also said, the Government are considering the question of the ombudsman, and discussions between Departments should reach a conclusion shortly.
Any potential loss of data is of course a very serious matter, which is why I wished to report to the House at the very earliest opportunity. As I have indicated, I will provide further information, including a copy of the report on the investigation that took place. I hope that that will offer some reassurance, because I say to the House—I do take this seriously—that when one looks at the form in which the data would be seen by someone who does not have technical knowledge and special equipment, one finds that they would be unreadable. That is why it is important to take this opportunity to reassure farmers about the steps we have taken and the low risk of any data getting out.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s “Mapping local food webs” project, which is operating in about 20 locations, including Otley, and is linking local producers, shops and markets? As his constituency is nearby, will he visit those local producers, shops and markets in Otley to see this fantastic scheme working?
I am always happy to receive an invitation from the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour. This is an excellent project, because we need to link people to opportunities to grow their own food and to supply it to others locally—it is good for our health and good for the climate.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, four years after the Buncefield explosions in my constituency, the environment and agriculture around the site remain heavily contaminated, particularly with perfluorooctane sulfonate—PFOS? Will he meet me and a delegation of my constituents to discuss their concerns about PFOS contamination?
I remember when the events at Buncefield happened. The hon. Gentleman and I had a number of meetings about tackling the fire, as we are both ex-firemen and I was the Minister with responsibility for dealing with fire. As Minister of State in DEFRA, I will be very happy to meet him and whomever he wishes to bring with him to discuss this important issue.
Business of the House
The business for the week commencing 2 November will be:
Monday 2 November—Remaining stages of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill [Lords], followed by a general debate on tackling antisocial 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—General debate on climate change: preparation for the climate change conference at Copenhagen.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 November will include:
Monday 9 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Coroners and Justice Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Tuesday 10 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Health Bill [Lords], followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 11 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 2.30 pm on that day.
Thursday 12 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
The House is expected to prorogue at the end of business on Thursday 12 November.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 12 November will be:
Thursday 12 November—A debate on the report from the Health Committee on health inequalities.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for next week’s business. Will she tell us whether the Prime Minister will be making a statement to the House on Monday after this weekend’s meeting of European leaders? Will he be using it to report progress on his preferred candidate for a proposed European president?
On the Kelly report, will she clarify what the Prime Minister suggested yesterday, namely that Sir Christopher’s report
“will form the basis of a statement to the House”—[Official Report, 28 October 2009; Vol. 498, c. 285.]
next Wednesday? Will she confirm that there will be an oral statement on the Kelly report and will she tell us whether she or the Prime Minister will be making it? It is a matter of great regret that whole sections of the report were leaked to the newspapers yesterday—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will she reassure us that when it comes to the real Kelly report, the House will be the first to know and not the last to find out? Will she clarify the confusion caused by the Justice Secretary’s statement last June that any recommendations would be
“subject to approval by this House”—[Official Report, 29 June 2009; Vol. 495, c. 51.]
and the No. 10 briefing yesterday that MPs would not be given a vote on Kelly?
Last week, the right hon. and learned Lady was unable to give me the date of the spring recess. As if there was not already enough mystery surrounding Easter, the Government are now intensifying it. When can she give us the date of the Easter recess and when can she give us the date of the crucial pre-Budget report?
May we have an urgent update from the business Minister on Royal Mail? We are now in week two of crippling strikes, with small businesses being hit particularly hard, but there is no sign of anyone in the Government showing any leadership. The Prime Minister appears to have given up and the normally ubiquitous Lord Mandelson has disappeared.
May we have a statement from the right hon. and learned Lady on the Government’s consistent sidelining of Parliament? Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) raised on a point of order the fact that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had failed to make a written statement that was directly relevant to the debate that was scheduled for that very afternoon. The week before, the Defence Secretary published 300 pages of the Gray report within two hours of a debate on procurement. As you made clear on both occasions, Mr. Speaker, that was a discourteous way to treat the House. What is the right hon. and learned Lady doing to convey that message to her colleagues?
Next week, my colleagues might wish to pursue the issue that we have just discovered, namely the serious loss of data by the Rural Payments Agency earlier this year, which only became known in the public domain a few moments ago.
Finally, we learned today the disturbing news that an Iranian national working as a political analyst in the British embassy in Tehran has been jailed for patently political purposes. May we have an urgent statement from the Foreign Secretary on what is being done to safeguard employees of British embassies around the world?
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Prime Minister will make a statement following the European Council meeting. It is usual for the Prime Minister to make a statement following major European conferences and summits.
As for Sir Christopher Kelly’s report, I, too, deplore the fact that it has been leaked. We have not seen the report and do not yet know what he proposes or the proposed timescale. We recognise that it is not appropriate for this House to set our own allowances—we know that the public do not want us to set or administer our allowance system. This summer we voted not to do so anymore when we voted to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Future changes to the allowance system following the Kelly report will therefore be carried out by IPSA. The House will have an opportunity to put forward its views when I make an oral statement next Wednesday, but there will not be a vote to decide on our allowances system because the House has already voted that that will no longer be a matter for us to decide. Decisions on allowances will be made by IPSA.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the date for the pre-Budget report and I will announce it in due course. He mentioned the lack of a written statement and the complaint made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). Nobody thinks that what happened was acceptable, and the Secretary of State has apologised.
On the Gray report, there was an issue about ensuring that that very large report was the subject of an oral statement to the House as quickly as possible. It was a very large report, however, so, rather than delay the statement while colleagues considered the report, the idea was to make the oral statement as quickly as possible. That situation was different from the one raised by the hon. Member for Meriden, which was a mistake and for which an apology has been made.
On the arrest and detention of the British embassy employee in Iran, the Foreign Secretary has deplored the arrest and asked for an appeal to be heard as soon as possible. He regards the situation as totally unacceptable.
May we have a debate on data handling by the Government? We have just had a mini-statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, informing us that material has been lost from the Rural Payments Agency. This is hardly the first time that the Government have lost sensitive material, but meanwhile they continue to collect, by means of the police forces, material that a court has held to be unlawful—in terms of the DNA samples of innocent people. May we have a debate on that issue?
I, too, deplore the fact that Sir Christopher Kelly’s report was partially leaked, but a statement on the report will not be sufficient, because a number of Members from all parts of the House will wish to have their say on the issue. I accept that there will not be a definitive vote, because that power has been given to the independent authority, but the House should have the opportunity to debate the issue. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for a debate to take place once the report has been published?
May I return the Leader of the House to the vexed issue of the presidency of the European Union Council? There seems to be at least two schools of thought on the president’s exact role: whether it will be “chairmanic”, to use the apparent term, or traffic-stopping. The House should have the opportunity to debate what the exact role of any such chairman would be, were the Lisbon treaty to be finally ratified in all states, and who might be a suitable candidate. Members from all parts of the House have strong feelings about not only who might be a good candidate for that post, but who might not.
I do not think that the right hon. and learned Lady responded to the question from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about how we might be kept updated on the postal strike. May we also be kept updated on the conflict in Afghanistan? We must never forget that we have troops in the field in Afghanistan, and that is a matter of importance to the House.
Finally, I note that, on Thursday 12 November, there is no indication of either a topical or a general debate. May I suggest that, rather than wait around for Prorogation as we normally do, we use the time profitably? May I repeat my request, therefore, that we have a debate on the military covenant? It would be particularly appropriate on 12 November and an opportunity for Members from all parts to raise issues of importance about not just servicemen and ex-servicemen, but their families.
I did omit to respond to the point about Royal Mail, so let me say that we are obviously very disappointed that yesterday’s talks did not reach a resolution that would have averted the strikes; however, the TUC is willing to continue to facilitate talks, and the Government are urging both sides to continue them. We have been in frequent contact with management and the union, and our message to them has been clear: both sides need to work to resolve the differences through dialogue, via ACAS if necessary, so that we can reach a solution.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the loss of data by the Rural Payments Agency, but that was dealt with in oral questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, so I do not have anything to add to what my right hon. Friend said. I see no connection at all between that loss and the collection of bio data on the DNA database. Think of all the murders that have been solved through the use of DNA data, all the offenders brought to justice, and all the sexual offenders who went unpunished before DNA evidence was available. I really think that the Liberal Democrats should get off the fence on this. The collection of DNA is a proportionate measure to ensure that offenders do not go unpunished. Any link between that and the RPA is tenuous.
Colleagues will have an opportunity to have their say on our allowances following my oral statement to the House. Again, the hon. Gentleman should make up his mind: does he really think it right that this House should pick over the question of our allowances when we have already decided to make that the responsibility of an independent authority? He cannot be on both sides of the argument; he either wants that decision reached independently, which is what this House has voted for, or he wants it to be picked over again in the House. The public want a transparent, fair arrangement for allowances, and—you know what?—they do not want us to be doing it. I do not think that extended debate, whether followed by a vote or not, helps the situation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Europe. We are very clear on our position on this. I thought that the Lib Dems, too, felt that it is important that this country is in the mainstream of Europe and that Europe is effective in safeguarding the interests of all European countries in a globalised economy and in terms of the globalised challenge to tackle climate change and the globalised efforts to ensure security. We want to be at the heart of Europe and for Europe to be strong on those issues. Of course, it is in Britain’s interests, if, as we hope, the Lisbon treaty is ratified, that a Briton—Tony Blair—should take up the post. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] That is what the Prime Minister said yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions, in case anybody thinks there is anything novel about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Afghanistan. We constantly have at the forefront of our mind the task of our troops, the price that is paid by our troops, and the importance of their work in Afghanistan. Indeed, the Prime Minister referred to that yesterday. We had a defence debate that covered the military covenant a couple of weeks ago. As I reported to the House last week, it is very important that we recognise not only the work that is done by our troops but the support given to them by their families. Part of the military covenant also relates not only to our troops, and to veterans, but to Army, Air Force and Navy wives.
Tomorrow is an historic day when you, Mr. Speaker, will preside over debate on these green Benches by the UK Youth Parliament. Will the Leader of the House grant us a statement or a debate when we can mark this historic occasion and perhaps discuss some of the lessons that we will learn?
My constituent, Mary McKie, is about to be repossessed next week, even though the Treating Customers Fairly regime should apply to her. Her mortgage debt has been sold to a company that is totally outside the Financial Services Authority’s remit—Webb Resolutions—and even though her mortgage is a third of her property’s value, she is not being given a chance to sell her home and pay back the debt. Can the Leader of the House allow us to have a debate on Treating Customers Fairly so that thousands of constituents in a similar position can have their concerns heard?
On the general issue of repossessions, there will be Treasury questions next week, when it will be possible to question the Chancellor and the Treasury team about the Treasury’s approach to the protection of people who lose their job or suffer a fall in their income because a family member loses their job or someone is working on short time.
As to the hon. Lady’s constituent, I will get back to her when I have worked out which would be the best Department to approach to see whether some assistance can be given. We do not want anyone who finds themselves in financial difficulties to have to lose their home if arrangements can be made for them to defer the payment of their mortgage interest. We want to ensure that every help is given to them.
It is important to recognise that the rate of increase in repossessions is lower than that predicted by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and we want to ensure that we help everyone affected.
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether a bribery Bill will be included in the Queen’s Speech and receive a Second Reading soon afterwards? She will recall that it was considered in draft in April and received widespread support from all parties. Will she find time for it to be concluded?
We are surrounded by leaks, both in the House and outside, and we will never carry the public with us on data-sharing issues unless we can demonstrate that we can look after things properly ourselves. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on information assurance?
When my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) quite reasonably asked the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister would make a statement about the European summit on Monday, she replied, “That is usual”. Would it not have been better to have said “Yes”, or is the Prime Minister dithering again?
The custom and practice is that the Leader of the House does not announce on a Thursday the statements for the following week, because they are often subject to change at the last minute. I announce the fixed programme of business for the week, and all that I have done is remind the House what is custom and practice. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is bogus and spurious, and I cannot see why he bothered to make it.
It is painfully clear to the whole country that the two sides in the postal dispute cannot reach agreement. Will the Minister with responsibility for postal services come to the House and explain why he will not instruct Royal Mail to go to arbitration so that we can stop the dispute?
The Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills made a statement a week or so ago setting out the Government’s position that we want to ensure that further disputes are avoided, as no doubt everybody does, above all in the interests of Royal Mail’s customers but also in the interests of its staff and the organisation as a whole.
Is the Leader of the House aware that it emerged yesterday in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee that the rules and procedures of the proposed European presidency are being fashioned in secrecy, and that the European Council proposes to adopt them straight away without the opportunity for scrutiny or debate in this House? Might we have some debate at least about the proposed new presidency?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend organise an early debate on insolvency fees and solicitors’ fees? Many individuals who lose their businesses and homes find themselves taken to the cleaners by those fees, which are as high as £400 an hour.
We want to make absolutely sure that we leave no stone unturned as the country and businesses face the current difficult economic situation. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will bring it to the attention of Treasury Ministers. It might be one that he should raise at Treasury questions next week.
In August, in reply to a letter, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole), told me that the Government were reneging on the promise of extra rail carriages on busy west Yorkshire lines in favour of electrification between Manchester and Liverpool and between London and Swansea. When will a Minister come to the House and give a statement to tell the people of Yorkshire about that, and when can we finally have a debate on the poor deal that this Government give public transport in Yorkshire?
The reality is that more passengers and more freight are being carried by train than ever before and the trains are more on time than ever before, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s general proposition that the situation on the railways is poor or will be in future. That is far from the case, but I will draw his specific points to the attention of the transport team, who will write to him.
Portcullis House has a G rating for energy use, the worst rating that any building can have. May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to enlist the advice of Green2Go, a company in my constituency that has developed a biofuel based on waste cooking oil, on how the energy rating of Portcullis House can be improved?
The G energy rating from 2008 recognised that although the initial design of Portcullis House received an “excellent” rating under the Building Research Establishment’s environmental assessment method, significant changes in function—specifically increased catering and more intensive occupation, with more people using the building—have resulted in significant energy consumption. That is why it now has a G rating. An estate-wide environmental assessment is under way and will identify improvement options for the future, and no doubt Green2Go from Stockport ought to feed into it. Meanwhile we must all play our part in helping the parliamentary estate to reduce its carbon footprint by turning off our televisions and ensuring that we do not use heating and air conditioning excessively.
May we have a debate on the next steps in the Lisbon treaty saga? It is clear from Members of all parties that such a debate would be a matter of great interest, not only in relation to the EU presidential issue but because it would allow each party in the House to spell out to the British people in advance of a general election where it stands on a referendum. The parties could make it clear, as they go to the people, that there will be a referendum come what may, so that the people of the United Kingdom will have their say as promised by the Government and the Opposition.
The postal workers are back on strike because they are frightened about job losses, bullying management and the future of a vital public service. It seems extraordinary that Ministers do not have more hands-on involvement. May I repeat the calls made by other Members for a special debate to be held, as urgently as possible, on the future of the Post Office and the situation facing postal workers?
Yesterday the Paymaster General confirmed, at column 273 of Hansard, that the Government rank ministerial Departments. The Ministry of Defence is ranked 21st out of 23. That is unacceptable, especially when we are fighting a war in Afghanistan. I genuinely ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a proper statement on the matter next week, so that we can question that priority.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House heard the remarkable defence by a Conservative party spokesman on “Today” this morning of Mr. Michal Kaminski, whom the chief rabbi of Poland has condemned for having been a member of a neo-Nazi party and who whitewashes the massacre of Jews in world war two. May we have an early debate on anti-Semitism and the importance of getting the history of world war two and the massacres of Jews right, particularly with reference to MEPs, not just these Poles but those from other countries? We need to get this matter cleared up and the Opposition’s shameful alliance exposed to the whole world.
Every year in this House, we have a debate on Holocaust memorial day, which is well attended and passionately supported by hon. Members of all parties. Not only what we do in this country and in this Chamber but how we conduct ourselves internationally is important. My right hon. Friend is right—no one in this country, particularly the Opposition, should consort with holocaust deniers, climate change deniers and homophobes. That is not the way that Britain wants to go.
May we have a debate on excessive bank charges? My right hon. and learned Friend may be aware of Bank of Scotland’s recent announcement that it would raise its overdraft charges for current account holders. That could mean up to 300 per cent. increases for some people. May I ask her to use the Government’s influence with that bank to get it to reconsider those proposals?
We recognise that bank overdraft charges are a source of public frustration in dealing with banks. We issued a call this summer in our White Paper for a speedy resolution to the millions of complaints that have been lodged with the Office of Fair Trading about overdraft charges. We expect a court decision soon on that matter and we are also working on reforms that will force banks to be much more transparent about terms and conditions. There will be Treasury questions next week, when my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise the matter with Treasury Ministers.
Has the Leader of the House had time to consider the reduction by half of the guests’ and Members’ seating in the Terrace Cafeteria? Does she agree that that is an important facility for Members who bring guests into the House? Is she aware that there has been no consultation on the matter? Does she agree that the seating should be restored, and not after Christmas as proposed?
There was less usage of the Members’ part of the cafeteria than of the part for all others working in the Commons. It was a shame that those working in the House were having their meals in a place that was absolutely packed out when the Members’ part was very underused. In response to that, the idea was to move the partition at a small cost to see whether that led to better usage. The matter will be kept under review, but I do not think there is any point in keeping tables and chairs empty.
Obviously, we have to ensure, particularly as we look ahead to deficit reduction, that every pound of public money is properly spent, and that includes in the arts. The British economy as well as the quality of our life in this country is massively enhanced by the arts and the Arts Council’s work. We obviously want to ensure that it is not only properly funded but spends all its money properly. My hon. Friend can probably raise the matter in Treasury questions.
May I again raise Criminal Records Bureau checks with the Leader of the House? They were brought in to protect the innocent and the young, but they are also blighting the lives of innocent people who have malicious accusations made against them, which remain on record. I have several such cases in my constituency. People cannot clear those CRB checks and the law needs to be changed. May we have a debate?
We all agree that we need a sensible and proportionate approach, which puts children’s safety first and ensures that the system is manageable. I cannot think of an immediate opportunity to raise the matter, but I will consider whether the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families needs to update the House. I know that several developments have taken place that he might want to report to the House.
May we have a debate on the importance of public expenditure on large infrastructure projects, which create many jobs? For instance, the proposed Mersey gateway would create hundreds of jobs through its construction and around 4,000 jobs after its construction.
Given that the number of annual hospital admissions for alcohol-related injuries has more than doubled in the north of Northamptonshire to 5,451 in the past six years, may we have a debate in Government time on drink-related violence and the Government’s 24-hour drinking culture?
I think it was the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we have the topical debate on fireworks this afternoon, and doubtless he will make a long and interesting speech. I note that he is now making another suggestion, which we will consider alongside others. Misuse of alcohol and alcohol-related injuries are serious matters and I will consider his suggestion.
I declare an interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. May we have a debate on better regulation of the accountancy profession? There are egregious examples of firms such as PricewaterhouseCoopers frequently having conflicts of interest by acting as company adviser, bank adviser and then administrator. That insolvency gravy train must be derailed as soon as possible in the interests of all so that we are not in a position whereby the practitioners get the pounds and creditors get the pence.
My hon. Friend has made another important point about the way in which insolvencies are handled. It is probably more of a question for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills than for the Treasury, although it is obviously a matter for both. I will consider how it perhaps needs to be taken forward in the House.
Given that recent research by the Prostate Cancer Charter for Action shows great inequalities still existing in the NHS for prostate cancer services, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in the near future on that important issue?
In addition, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to consider the matter. There is no doubt that proper awareness of the opportunity for screening for prostate cancer and early intervention are important for prevention and treatment. It is an important issue, on which we can make progress.
May I support those who are calling for an urgent debate on the situation facing Royal Mail? May I also ask for consideration to be given to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, who face immense problems at this time? Is it not right that the Government, as the shareholder, should examine ways how they can provide support to ensure that we do not lose more of those invaluable services?
We are committed to the post office network and the important work done by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that it is not only those directly employed by and working for Royal Mail who are affected by the dispute. Not only businesses who use the services and the people who rely on them are affected, but the post office network is too. I will draw the matter to the attention of Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers.
Thousands of people replied to the consultation on the Badman review of elective home education. Many pointed to the lack of evidence and the weakness of the data that underlay his recommendations. May we have a debate in Government time on home education so that Ministers can be informed by it before they introduce any draft legislation?
To revert to the European Union, is not the deeper issue not only the relative merits of individual candidates but the fact that so many hon. Members still oppose the Lisbon treaty, and that a considerable minority of hon. Members oppose Britain’s membership of the EU? Is that not the most powerful argument for a full debate about our future relationship with the EU, and whether it should be one of isolation or of full participation? If the Government are considering any sort of referendum, should it not be on our membership so that those who oppose the consensus of the past third of a century have the opportunity to say so?
The Government—the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—have made it absolutely clear where we believe Britain’s interest lies. Our interests in terms of the economy, tackling climate change and security depend on our working together with our European partners, and not in drawing away from them at precisely the time when international co-operation is absolutely essential. It is also important that we have a strong Europe to work with the United States, China and India, so we will be pressing forward for better co-operation and working in Europe, and putting Britain at the heart of Europe.
May we debate early-day motion 2180 and the Government’s Sustainable Development Commission’s conclusion that the cost and problems of new nuclear power stations far outweigh any benefits?
[That this House notes that on 26 October the Government’s Sustainable Development Commission said that they had ‘found the problems of nuclear power far outweigh the potential benefits’; agrees with this timely and sensible assessment; and calls on the Government to abandon proposals to build new nuclear power stations.]