---

Mrs. May: May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members and staff of the House a happy new year? Judging by the evidence of yesterday, it will be an entertaining new year, courtesy of the Liberal Democrat leadership contenders. [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] I assume that they must all be out announcing their leadership candidacy. I heard that Liberal Democrat MPs were each signing more than one nomination for leadership candidates, which takes Lib Dem indecision to new heights.

I am sure that the Leader of the House was as concerned as I was to hear that Ministers have allowed people on the register of sex offenders to be employed to teach children in our schools. Was he as outraged as I was to hear that despite—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order was raised last night by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 426
 
Because of that point of order, I requested that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills make a statement, which will follow this statement, so I ask the right hon. Lady to leave that matter and move on to other subjects. That is not something for the Leader of the House; the appropriate Secretary of State will make a statement.

Mrs. May: I am grateful for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I would, however, wish to ask a number of questions about aspects of the issue that are not relevant to the Department for Education and Skills—

Mr. Speaker: No, the right hon. Lady will not do that. An appropriate Minister will make a statement to the House, and I will not allow this now. We are talking about the business for next week.

Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I shall return to future business and suggest to the Leader of the House that as the Government have now dropped their Northern Ireland legislation from the business for two weeks' time, that gives them an opportunity to introduce legislation covering the results of Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into the Soham murders. Will the Government change the business of the House to ensure that such legislation can be brought forward?

There are a number of issues relating to child protection, not least of which are some of the points raised during the passage of the Children Act 2004. Will the Leader of the House ensure that in due course we can have a wide-ranging debate on child protection as it relates to all Government Departments?

There are indications in the press that the Prime Minister intends to reshuffle his Cabinet. I cannot imagine why he might feel that some Secretaries of State are not appropriate for their jobs—although I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has been given his full support. Will the Leader of the House confirm that if a reshuffle takes place, the Prime Minister will fill the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which has remained vacant for many months?

Given all that has happened with Government statistics, and the variability of the statistics produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that hon. Members were concerned to read yesterday that the Bank of England is apparently so concerned about the uncertainty of Government statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics that it has had to introduce a unit to provide its own figures, so that it can have some decent figures on which to operate, as opposed to those produced by the ONS. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore give the House a debate in Government time on the whole question of Government statistics, and the reliability of the figures on which Government decisions are based?

Finally, bearing in mind the fact that over the Christmas recess it was announced that the health authorities in Oxfordshire, under Thames Valley strategic health authority, had had not only to delay heart operations but to cancel operations that people had been expecting—including the very same operation of which the Prime Minister recently had the benefit—
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 427
 
will the Leader of the House give us the opportunity for a full and proper debate on the impact of Government policy on the health service? As we heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), 300 health service jobs are to go in Hammersmith. Jobs are also to be lost in Shrewsbury. That is the real impact of Government policies, and it should be debated in Government time.

Mr. Hoon: I thank the right hon. Lady for her good wishes, which are, of course, reciprocated.

I shall try as best I can to deal with the right hon. Lady's observations about questions arising from the register of sex offenders but am mindful, Mr. Speaker, of your observations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will deal specifically with the question of legislation, and I think it best that she be allowed to make that statement in due course. There will certainly be opportunities in future to debate, as we should, the question of the impact of those issues for all Departments, and I assure the right hon. Lady that the issue will be taken properly and seriously by all of them. Matters will obviously arise in the light of Michael Bichard's report.

As far as the position of the Duchy of Lancaster is concerned, I am disappointed that the right hon. Lady did not give full credit for the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, who has done a superb job in ensuring that the work of the Duchy is properly carried forward on behalf of the Government and of Parliament. Perhaps I might add to her observation an addendum saying what a magnificent job he has been doing. I am sure that he is keen to continue doing it.

As far as Government statistics are concerned, we have made clear the importance of having such statistics developed independently and with the confidence of the country. That is why we have made recent changes to the arrangements, and I am sure that all Members will acknowledge that and congratulate the Government on the efforts made.

The right hon. Lady's final observation about the health authority in Oxfordshire is one of a type of question that has arisen from the Opposition Benches over a number of weeks about deficits. I am sure that she would want me to make it clear that deficits are restricted to a very small number of national health service bodies. Around 4 per cent. of them are responsible for something like 50 per cent. of the deficit. More than 65 per cent. of NHS organisations are in surplus or achieving a balance. I would find it more interesting if Opposition Members came to the House to share my concern about why, when the great majority of health service bodies are able to balance their books or, indeed, to have a surplus, others are failing, despite the considerable extra public funding going into the health service, to achieve that balance. If Opposition Members said that they shared that concern, there would be something on which we could all agree.

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1349 on mesothelioma as a specialism.
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 428
 

[That this House welcomes the expeditious processing, over the last three years, of asbestos-induced cancer cases by the introduction of a fast track system in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court; recognises that it has dramatically reduced litigation time for both live plaintiffs and surviving relations; is concerned that this progress has been put in jeopardy by the Department of Constitutional Affairs in its consultation paper Focussing Judicial Resources Appropriately—The Right Judge for the Right Case by proposing an end to some civil specialisms including mesothelioma; and calls on the Lord Chancellor to review the proposal and recognise mesothelioma as a specialism.]

There has been an arrangement in the Queen's bench division of the High Court for a fast-track system for mesothelioma cases, and live cases have been rushed through in a matter of four weeks. That is in jeopardy because the Department for Constitutional Affairs has put out consultation suggesting that certain civil specialisms, including mesothelioma, should be ditched. There is an important wider issue here about asbestos, with something like 4,000 people dying each year as a result of exposure and 2,000 diagnoses every year of mesothelioma cancer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sympathetic to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I know constituents who have such terrible difficulties. However, what he is putting forward is more like an Adjournment debate than a question on business. If he applies to me for an Adjournment debate, I will make no guarantees, but he stands a good chance.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has demonstrated in the past few moments his undoubted expertise in, and extensive knowledge of, this important subject, which affects his constituents and many other people across the country. I am aware of the concerns that he has expressed, and I will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.

---