Will the Leader of the House give us next week’s business?

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 9 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Coroners and Justice Bill.

Tuesday 10 November—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 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords].

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—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.

: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.

Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Lady said that she would table the motion on Professor Sir Ian Kennedy’s appointment as chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority within the next few days. Will she ensure that the House is given fair warning so that that does not just pop up on the Order Paper by surprise, as the appointment of the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA did last week?

May I repeat the call for a debate on how Sir Christopher Kelly’s report will be implemented? Despite what the right hon. and learned Lady said yesterday, of Kelly’s 60 recommendations, I have counted at least 12 that are decisions that need to be taken by the House, and another 10 recommendations on strengthening IPSA will require primary legislation. That means that more than a third of Sir Christopher’s report requires the attention of the House rather than that of the independent regulator. The right hon. and learned Lady said yesterday that she did not think that we should be addressing the question of legislating to change the IPSA structure, but is it not clear that that is exactly what we shall have to do if, as she said yesterday, we implement Kelly’s proposals in full?

May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on his assertion on 10 June that Government action has saved 500,000 jobs? Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have repeatedly used that figure in the House to justify Government decisions over the past 12 months, but last night the Treasury published documents under the Freedom of Information Act showing that the advice given to Ministers before this year’s Budget was that a figure of

“between 250,000 and 450,000”

could be used, but that any

“public statement should be worded carefully”.

Moreover, the documents make it completely clear that it could be seen as spurious for the Government even to claim that number, because monetary policy, which we have consistently supported, is independent of Government. Will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor take an early opportunity to correct the record?

The Committee on Reform of the House of Commons is due to set out its findings by the end of next week. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that when it is published she will make an oral statement to the House on how the Government plan to take forward that Committee’s recommendations? When might we have an opportunity to debate that Committee’s important report?

Next Monday, we were due to debate secondary legislation on the 2011 census. That debate has been unexpectedly postponed. Given that we have expressed real concerns about the intrusive nature of some of those questions, is that an indication, as we hope, that the Government have decided to reconsider the invasive format of the new census?

May I ask the Leader of the House yet again to provide us with the date of the pre-Budget report? The Chancellor had his opportunity at Treasury questions on Tuesday, but did not take it. There are reports that the Prime Minister is clashing with the Chancellor over the former’s plans for a massive new spending spree before the election. Do the Government not owe it to the public to come clean on their spending plans?

Finally, on the economy, may we have a statement on the recent outburst from the Government’s enterprise tsar, Lord Sugar—that the majority of small firms are just “moaners” who need not a bank but an insolvency practitioner? Is that not a rather unusual way to champion a sector that is normally referred to as the lifeblood of the economy? With the Federation of Small Businesses calling for Lord Sugar to go, does the Leader of the House think that he still has the confidence of the companies that he is meant to be representing? Or is it time to say, “You’re fired”?

I have undertaken to the House that we will bring forward the motion as soon as possible to endorse your choice, Mr. Speaker, of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy as the chair of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Notification to the House will be made in the normal way.

On the issue of decisions that need to be taken by the House and those that would need legislative change, it is helpful to look at the Kelly report proposals for substantive changes in respect of a new allowance system. Effectively, Sir Christopher Kelly has proposed a new allowance framework, and that should be the priority, along with setting up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. As far as the House is concerned, we need to help the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority get on with its work by endorsing the appointment of the chair. It will then be for the authority to take forward the Kelly proposals and implement them. That is the central and important objective. The other issues can be looked at, but they are not germane to the aim of having a new allowance system, based on Kelly’s proposals, in place and ready for the new Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the half a million jobs that would have been lost had the Government not taken action. Perhaps I may identify for him the action that we have taken which, had the Conservatives been in government, would not have been taken, but which has made such a difference in protecting jobs. First, we brought forward capital projects, which not only ensures good capital investment in schools and health centres, but provides jobs. If we had not done that, it would have cost jobs. We also brought forward our time to pay proposals for businesses, so that they are not put out of business because they cannot pay their taxes as a consequence of the global financial crisis and the credit crunch—

This is a party political broadcast.

Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) that I require no assistance from him—[Interruption.] Order. I am chairing the proceedings. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to participate, he should sit and listen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some 200,000 businesses have been able to defer payment of tax and stay in business through the difficult economic times, and that has saved jobs. If those firms had been put out of business because they had been made insolvent by HMRC, that would have cost jobs. Then there is the temporary 2.5 per cent. VAT cut, which helped the economy, and that has helped jobs.

We have also taken other fiscal stimulus measures, including the increase in child benefit and pensions. All those measures have preserved at least half a million jobs, and we therefore stand by that figure. There will be further discussion in the pre-Budget report about the economy, and our plans will be laid out. If hon. Members want to ask anything else, they can discuss the matter, no doubt, in the economic part of the debate on the Queen’s Speech.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for an opportunity to debate the proposals from the Committee Reform of the House of Commons, and I will look for, and discuss with him, when is the best opportunity for the House to discuss those important proposals. He also asked about the census. I do not know the answer to that question. I will have to find out—or perhaps someone will tell me before the end of business questions. If they do, I will interpose it in an answer to somebody else’s question.

I think that is it. [Hon. Members: “Lord Sugar?”] That is certainly it.

First, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all the Officers of the House, for the conduct of the meeting of the Youth Parliament last Friday. I thought that it was a huge success, and we should mark it as such.

Will the Leader of the House consider the way in which the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill has been timetabled? That constitutional Bill is in Committee of the whole House, and 16 clauses and one schedule have already gone through without any debate, simply because of timetabling by the Government. That is simply unacceptable. Will she ensure that the following days of Committee will not be curtailed in that way and that we have full and proper discussion of the very important matters that should be under scrutiny?

The whole country is debating, almost on a daily basis, the grim news from Afghanistan. The only place where there has not been a recent opportunity to do so is in this Chamber. It is time that we had a full day’s debate on the policy being pursued in Afghanistan, not simply from a military point of view, but from a foreign affairs point of view too. We need to ask some serious questions about the position in which we are putting our very brave and professional troops in Afghanistan. It is time for the House to have that debate.

May we also have a debate on the Government control of IT systems? The computer system for criminal justice managed to waste £41 million through delays and cost overruns, and £161 million cannot be accounted for in the management of that project. Two years ago, it was abandoned. We are used to appalling IT procurement, but that really is a humdinger. It is time that we had a debate on the matter.

Finally, may we also have a debate on consumer protection? I am concerned that many trading standards departments, including mine in Somerset, seem no longer to give consumer advice. That is wrong. It means that consumers are not provided with protection from being ripped off over shoddy goods, false claims or cast-iron guarantees that prove worthless.

The hon. Gentleman stole a march on me and the shadow Leader of the House in thanking you, Mr. Speaker, and everyone else who took part in helping the Youth Parliament. It was a brilliant occasion, and I hope that we will do it again. It was fantastic.

All proceedings of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill in Committee are being taken on the Floor of the House, and it was agreed without Division that we should have four days in that Committee of the whole House. Then it came to dividing up the subjects for each day. The day before yesterday—or was it yesterday?—25 of the 27 groups were gone through. The Bill was, of course, subject to detailed pre-legislative scrutiny by a Committee of both Houses, but in reality there is discussion across the parties about how to organise the debates. It is not possible to predict with complete accuracy how many speakers will be attracted to each debate; it is not an exact science. However, we have no interest in anything other than ensuring that the House has as much time as it needs, and that it is apportioned properly across each section of the legislation.

We all remain deeply concerned about the situation in Afghanistan. It is always addressed at Prime Minister’s questions, and I think that we will need to return to it. As I have announced, we have no space for general debates before the Queen’s Speech, because we have all the Lords amendments coming back from the Lords prior to the House proroguing before the Queen’s Speech. There will be the debates after the Queen’s Speech, but I will need to look for an opportunity for us to have a debate on Afghanistan shortly.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned what he described as the humdinging computer issue in the Ministry of Justice. I would simply say that Justice questions are next week.

While the Kelly report is to be welcomed, some aspects of it need clarification. Can my right hon. and learned Friend help us by explaining the transitional arrangements for the communications allowance?

There are a number of transitional issues, including the communications allowance. We have put in place transitional arrangements, following the decisions of the House in April, May and June. We now have the Kelly report, and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will come into place for the next Parliament. Colleagues will want to be sure that they are aware of how they should be doing things in the post-Kelly, pre-Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority transitional period that we are now in, particularly in respect of the property valuation date of 4 November that Sir Christopher Kelly has proposed.

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee on Members Allowances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who has undertaken to identify the issues that hon. Members are asking about and to liaise with Sir Christopher and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, as well as the House authorities, to ensure that the House authorities issue clear guidance to Members on the matters of concern to them in the interim period. Members will therefore receive proper guidance right away from the House authorities on the decisions that they will have to take.

On the communications allowance, the issues are the use of communications expenditure and the regulated period for election expenditure under the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, under which new expenditure limits will come into force. There is also the ceasing of the use of the communications allowance in an election period. There have been discussions across the parties, and, having reached an agreement, the Justice Secretary has indicated that he will sign the order bringing into effect the new financial limits for election spending, which will start from 1 January. The proposal is that the use of the communications allowance should end on 31 December, after which the new election expenses limits will come into force.

I know that hon. Members will be concerned about how they advertise their advice surgeries, for example, once the communications allowance has ceased. We will have to have some guidance on that from the Members Estimate Committee. Indeed, it might be possible to deal with that under the office cost allowance.

rose—

Order. From now on I want to make much faster progress. Brief questions and brief answers are required.

Will the Leader of the House look into holding a debate on the cuts to accident and emergency services at hospitals such as King George hospital, which serves my constituency?

There are no cuts in the national health service, but there certainly would have been if public spending had been under the control of the Conservative party over the past 10 years.

My right hon. and learned Friend shares my concerns about the position of women in the financial services industry, but does she share my concern that the Government mandate for the Walker review on banking governance does not refer specifically to the position of women in banking? Will she organise a debate on that important subject, so that we can ensure justice for women in the financial services industry?

The important thing is that the financial services industry should work properly and draw on the best talents and abilities of the country as a whole. It clearly is not doing that if it continues to operate as an old boys’ network, as it is now. Although my hon. Friend is a great example, as she is a member of the Treasury Committee, I am afraid that the Committee itself is setting a bad example, because she is the only woman serving on it. Good governance requires a meritocracy, and an old boys’ network is certainly not a meritocracy.

Will the Government find time soon to debate the proposals that I am publishing today on behalf of the all-party group on extraordinary rendition, to try to get a clampdown on extraordinary rendition and give the public confidence that Britain will no longer be used, either directly or indirectly, for that practice?

The Government have made it absolutely clear that we will not allow this country to be party to, participate in or be used for the process of kidnapping and abduction, or illegally transporting detainees across borders. That is not something that we accept or endorse, and all of those are already criminal offences.

May I tempt the Leader of the House to have an early debate on the nature of childhood, and on how we protect children and prescribe certain legislative guarantees that make children and childhood safe in our time?

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, makes an important suggestion. Perhaps we can consider holding a topical debate on that subject, as it involves a number of issues about safeguarding children and the registration of people involved with them. Several of those issues have been raised recently, so perhaps we could do with having a debate on them on the Floor of the House.

As of this week, the footage and clips of what is going on here in Parliament are easily available to search and view on the excellent BBC Democracy Live website, so that the people out there can see the business of the House. The ability to share those clips with their friends or on their own websites is available for the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—in short, everywhere but Westminster. Will the Leader of the House take steps to ensure that the public have equal access to footage of the business of this House?

I will look into that and liaise with the House authorities and my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

My early-day motion 2237 on the question of the referendum on the treaty of Lisbon was approved by the Table Office last night and subsequently gutted by a senior official to remove the names of Members who said two years ago that they wanted a referendum even if the Lisbon treaty were ratified.

[That this House calls on those hon. Members who have previously expressed the view that a referendum should be held on the Lisbon Treaty before or after ratification to clarify their position now that the Treaty has been ratified by all Member States.]

May I ask my friend on the Front Bench whether we can have an early debate on the whole question of the referendum, to allow the 45 Opposition Members who said that they still wanted a referendum even after ratification to debate the issue?

I can give my hon. Friend a cast-iron guarantee that I will look into these issues. It is clear that we have had a cast-iron U-turn from the Opposition, who would put us on the margins of Europe and make it more difficult for us to pursue this country’s objectives on the economy, climate change and security. The content of EDMs is a matter for the House officials; it is a matter for them to ensure that EDMs are expressed in appropriate language.

On the subject of cast-iron guarantees, may I remind the Leader of the House of one that the Government have given on many occasions to hold a debate on the pre-Budget report? May I push her for an early indication on that—it will be a particularly important pre-Budget report—and for a commitment on such a debate, please?

We will look to have a proper opportunity for ensuring that there is a possibility of a debate on economic issues following the statement on the pre-Budget report. I am aware of the points that have been made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and many others about this issue.

May we have a debate on the work and track record of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, and, in particular, on its consistent refusal to recognise khat, a root that is chewed primarily by people in the Somali community and that has a dangerous and damaging effect on mental health in such communities? The committee keeps claiming that there is insufficient evidence from a broad population base that it should be a proscribed drug.

Perhaps my hon. Friend could look into having a debate on that in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment. I am sure that other hon. Members would want to join in.

Will the Leader of the House apologise to my constituents for saying a moment ago that there had been no cuts in the NHS under Labour? My acute hospital has been decimated: the accident and emergency unit has been closed, as have the maternity unit, the intensive care unit and the high-dependency unit. All the beds have been closed. The diagnostic unit has stayed open, along with the out-patients and minor injuries units. Is that really what the Leader of the House meant by “no cuts” in the NHS under Labour?

There has been increased funding and improvement in services, resulting in fewer deaths from preventable diseases. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that the health service has got worse, he is not engaging with the reality. There has been more funding, more doctors, nurses and staff, and more equipment, and there are better outcomes for people’s health and for saving lives. That is the same in his constituency as anywhere else across the country.

When can we debate our reliance on the corrupt, depraved, drug-addicted, murdering thieves of the Afghan police?

We are all concerned about the situation in Afghanistan and about what happened in relation to the Afghan police, with the terrible loss of our soldiers’ lives. I will look for an opportunity to debate that as soon as we can after the Queen’s Speech has been concluded.

May I assist the Leader of the House by giving her an opportunity now to answer the question about Lord Sugar? Will she tell us whether she will apologise for his outrageous remarks. If not, does that mean that she endorses them?

I am afraid that I have not actually seen the remarks that were made. I do not know whether they were made in the House of Lords or on a TV programme, but I will look into them.

Now that the House looks set to adopt the Kelly review in full, will my right hon. and learned Friend introduce a similar review of all taxpayers’ money, whether it is spent by quangocrats, senior civil servants or retired civil servants, or whether it applies to the recipients of Government money through contracts, so that businesses—including newspapers that take Government advertising—can also be brought into this regime of openness and transparency?

My hon. Friend has made a wide-ranging point about transparency, and he makes a good point about the higher echelons of public sector pay. That subject is currently being looked at by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We can all recognise that the top of public sector pay has got completely out of hand, with many people being paid more than the Prime Minister. We need to get a grip on that and sort it out. I also think that pay transparency is very important in the private sector, and that is one of the things that will be in the Equality Bill.

Given the greater attention that the House is now, rightly, paying to public opinion of this House, may we have a debate on why the British people continue to be denied their say on the relationship between the UK and the European Union? Why does there appear to be a conspiracy across all the main parties to deny the people of the United Kingdom their say? It is what they want; why can they not have their say?

The people of the United Kingdom have general elections in which they elect Members to this House, and we decide things as elected representatives thereafter. We are accountable for our decisions to our electorate.

The centenary year of Girlguiding UK has just commenced. May we have a short debate on the merits of that estimable organisation? It has 100,000 adult volunteer leaders and 20,000 supporters providing a framework that enables 450,000 Rainbows, Brownies and Guides to enjoy a girl-led programme that builds skills, confidence and self-esteem in a phenomenal way.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s tribute to the Girl Guides, and this might be a subject for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment.

I have called for a debate on the legacy of the Olympics before, but there are now real concerns that the promise of increased grass-roots participation in sport is not being delivered. There are now 1,000 days until the Olympics. Does the Leader of the House accept that we need time in this House to debate the legacy of that event?

There is going to be a fantastic Olympics and a fantastic legacy in many, many respects. We shall have Culture, Media and Sport questions on Monday, at which time the hon. Gentleman can put his questions to the Minister.

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said about the Lisbon referendum, which proves that some of us have not changed our minds. I also welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said in reply to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about a debate on Afghanistan, but will she ensure that that debate is on a substantive motion?

As I have said, I will consider how the House is able to participate in a debate on Afghanistan as soon as we possibly can. It is a matter of great priority for those on both sides of the House.

The all-party save the pub group has received evidence to show that the Office of Fair Trading decision to ignore the super-complaint from the Campaign for Real Ale is deeply flawed and represents a dereliction of duty by this public body. May we have an investigation and an urgent debate in the House about this very serious matter?

There are business questions next week, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to raise the matter with Ministers then.

May I simply endorse the request from a number of Members for a debate on Afghanistan? When we went into that country, one of our objectives was to support the establishment of democracy, but the farce of the recent election has led many Members and members of the public to question our strategy, so that debate should be held as soon as possible.

Although there have been recent statements, I think that, because of situation after the election and because of the continued tragic loss of life, it is right to have a debate on Afghanistan as soon as possible.

My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Kemp and their eight-year-old daughter went to Egypt. As they went through the airport, they passed through an automatic temperature control. The little girl had a slight temperature: they had their passports confiscated, they were removed to a filthy isolation hospital and they were detained there against their will. May we have an urgent statement from the Foreign Secretary next week on the Egyptian policy of kidnapping British tourists?

I will ask my ministerial colleague to write to the hon. Gentleman about that particular case.

On the eve of Remembrance Sunday and in a week that has seen a high-profile court case involving a young man who urinated on a war memorial, may we have a statement from the Ministry of Defence about the special and sacred way in which war memorials should be considered by the public and the sanctions available to the police and the law authorities to use against those who seek to ruin the memorials to people who have given their lives in the service of our country.

I will ask the relevant Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman about that issue.

May we have a debate about how to measure accurately the difference in pay between men and women? In one of her other guises, the Leader of the House is always very fond of quoting just one figure, but the Office for National Statistics made it clear yesterday that pay rates are an important but complex matter, and that a range of measurements should be used. According to one of those measures, men who work part time are shown to be paid less than women.

I have had discussions with ONS about this and it has decided on three measurements. The top-line measurement is the average hourly pay difference between all employed men and all employed women. That is the top-line measurement. Below that, another measurement is the average hourly pay difference between men and women working full time, while the third measurement is the average hourly pay difference between men and women working part time. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to be under the misapprehension that somehow men are paid less well than women. That is not the case. If one looks at men and women going out to work, we find that women are paid a fifth less than men across the average. I do not believe that per hour of their work, women are 22 per cent. less intelligent than men, 22 per cent. less hard working than men or 22 per cent. less valuable to their employers than men. That is gender discrimination in pay, but, given the hon. Gentleman’s question, it very much sounds to me as though he is a gender pay discrimination denier. It is certainly not the case that men as a whole are paid less than women, even though the hon. Gentleman might dredge up a few examples.

Does the Leader of the House believe that it may be necessary to amend our sitting hours in view of the impact on this House of some of the proposals in the Kelly report?

We certainly want to make absolutely sure in future that, whatever changes are made by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority following on from the Kelly report, neither men nor women MPs will find it difficult to get home very late at night, so arrangements will have to be made one way or another to ensure that men and women can get on with their work in the House.

May I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has said that she will find time for a debate on Afghanistan, and reinforce its importance? She should ensure that it is a full day’s debate in the middle of the week so that we secure maximum participation by Members who want to raise constituents’ questions. In that debate, will she ensure that Ministers understand and are reminded of why we ended up in Afghanistan in the first place? They should not forget the history of what happened in that country and should perhaps apologise to the people of Afghanistan for when we took our eye off the ball, which damaged the achievement of our goals and the aims that took us there in the first place.

It will be important to have a debate about the objectives of our mission in Afghanistan and how we achieve them, but I think that the central point—it is made by the Prime Minister when he answers questions about this at Prime Minister’s questions—is that the mission is not only important for the people in Afghanistan, but for the security of people in this country. Two thirds of all the terror plots in this country have links with the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. It is a question of this country’s security.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am grateful to hon. Members for their enthusiasm to raise points of order, which, as they will know, come after statements. I myself have a short statement to make before we proceed to the main business.