| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
May we have a statement—or even a debate—on the legitimacy, remit, structure and organisation of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? As we have just heard in parliamentary questions, the recent reshuffle that the Prime Minister was forced into staging has to be seen as one of the most shambolic in political history, with 11 Ministers resigning from the Government in the course of seven days. Worse still, civil servants in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills returned to their desks after lunch to find that their
Department had been abolished, and subsumed into the empire of “he who must now be named the First Secretary”. This new super-Department has 11 Ministers, over half of whom are non-elected peers—no doubt exactly what the Government have in mind as they discuss their latest schemes for democratic renewal. Now that Lord Mandelson is Secretary of State for almost everything—including outer space—and has become the de facto Deputy Prime Minister, is the Leader of the House still in favour of her earlier proposal that he should be able to answer questions in the House of Commons?
May we have a debate on higher education and the prospects of graduates? We must not forget that universities too have been casually added to Lord Mandelson’s portfolio. However, this is the week in which we learnt that in 2007-08 one in seven students dropped out of university, a quarter failed to finish their degrees, and almost half the students at London Metropolitan university quit their courses before the end of the year. Worse still, a report published today suggests that 40,000 students graduating this year, no doubt with heavy debts, will still be struggling to find work in six months’ time. With the scale of the mess that the Government’s have made in higher education becoming more apparent by the day, does the right hon. and learned Lady really think that this is the time to be creating further upheaval in Departments just to satisfy ministerial empire-building?
The reshuffle has also left some important pieces of legislation in complete confusion. May we have a statement on the Government’s immigration policy? Comments made by the departing Home Secretary on the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill during her appearance in the Chamber last week left Members on both sides of the House perplexed about the Government’s basic policy on immigration, and about whether they are in favour of a future cap. Given that the British National party managed to win in areas that the Labour party had deserted, where much concern was expressed about the impact of immigration on jobs, does the Leader of the House not think that there should now be a clear statement of what the Government’s policy on immigration really is?
Let me repeat a question that I asked last week, and which Opposition spokesmen pursued during Question Time today: when will we debate the Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill? May I also ask when we shall see the draft legislative programme that we would normally have seen by this time of year?
Last week the right hon. Lady asserted that a Treasury Minister had recently updated the House on the progress of the independent inquiry into Equitable Life compensation during a debate in Westminster Hall. However, the only real information that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave there was bad news—the fact that no actuary had yet been appointed to Sir John Chadwick’s review body. The Government have been deliberately vacillating for months, and I have to say that I think the House’s temper is beginning to fray. Will the right hon. Lady now give an absolute guarantee that Sir John will produce an interim report—for us, in the House, before the summer recess—on how Equitable Life policyholders will be compensated?
Is the Leader of the House concerned about the fact that since she has become Minister for Women and Equality, the number of women in the Cabinet has
actually decreased? Although we know that she could never be dismissed as mere window-dressing—indeed, if she were, I would immediately become the window cleaner—may I take this opportunity to reiterate my support for any bid that she might yet make to become Britain’s second woman Prime Minister? I echo the comment made on The Guardian website this week:
“I'd like to see Harriet Harman as Labour’s candidate for PM at the next election. She’d be just like Margaret Thatcher—a female party leader who convinces millions to vote Tory.”
Ms Harman: I echo the hon. Gentleman’s appreciative comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the former Deputy Leader of the House, who now has responsibility for European issues. I agree that he was a brilliant Deputy Leader—and he does not only speak Spanish; I believe that he also speaks French, German and Italian.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): And Welsh?
Ms Harman: And probably Welsh as well.
Let me also express, on behalf of all of us, our appreciation of the House’s staff in connection with the tube strike, and say on behalf of everyone in London that we expect agreement to be reached. Londoners cannot be held to ransom and have their lives made a misery as a result of a dispute involving the tube, which is the backbone of London’s transport structures.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the new structure of the Department responsible for business; there have, of course, been departmental questions to that Department this morning. We make no apology for putting supporting business and tackling the economic crisis at the centre of Government action. That is a priority for this country and the biggest challenge for Government. We make no apology for reconfiguring the machinery of government to be focused effectively on that task.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the prospects for graduates. It is right that we see further and higher education not only as essential for individuals who want the opportunity to achieve their full potential, but as a central economic issue. The recovery has to be skills based, and include as many people as possible, which is why configuring the universities into the Department responsible for business at the centre of our economic strategy is very important. Since we came into government there has been a massive increase in the number of people able to undertake further and higher education. The most recent figures show that since 1997 there has been about a 300 per cent. increase in the number of my constituents who now are able to gain degrees; I am sure that the picture will be the same in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That is massive progress, on which we will continue to build.
Our immigration policy remains as it ever was: firm, fair and points-based. We have all been shocked and horrified by the fact that two great regions of this country—the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside—are represented by the British National party, which has in its constitution a provision that no one who is not white can be a member. Under the Equality Bill that is passing through the House, that constitution will be made unlawful. I know that the Opposition voted against the Equality Bill, but I hope that they will now strongly support the Bill, which will prevent us from having an apartheid political party in this country.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) was being interviewed by George Alagiah on Channel 4, she said, “I was born in Egypt but I could be a member of the British National party because I am white. You were born in Britain but you would not be able to be a member of the British National party because of the colour of your skin.” All of us should agree that there is no place in this country for a political party to have an apartheid constitution, and the Equality Bill will prevent that.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) asked about the Postal Services Bill, which he noticed was not in the forthcoming business that I have announced. He knows that I announce two weeks at a time. The Bill has completed its stages through the House of Lords, and he must await the announcement of its arrival in this House.
The draft legislative programme has been delayed because this year we had elections in June, immediately prior to which there was a purdah period; previously the elections were in May. That affected the timetabling of the draft legislative programme, which will appear very soon.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Equitable Life. It is the policyholders who have lost out in Equitable Life who are frustrated and want action quickly. The House will be updated, before it rises, on the progress on Sir John Chadwick’s investigations.
As far as women in politics are concerned, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued attention to this issue. It is important that women in politics make sure that we deliver for women in this country. Politics is not about us as politicians; it is about what we as women and men working together can do in respect of the lives of women and men in this country. That is why I hope that Members on both sides will be prepared to support extra maternity pay and leave, more flexible working for balancing work and family responsibilities, ending pay discrimination against women and having more women in the House of Commons.
Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): On Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a written statement about the situation facing Dairy Farmers of Britain, in which he guaranteed that all parties would work together to try to minimise the impact of the closures taking place and the demise of dairy farms. The regional development agency, the banks and the local work force are working together to try to avoid the closure of a dairy in my Blaydon constituency, which could happen tonight. The one group that it is not doing its bit is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Please can we have what the Secretary of State offered: an updated statement to the House as the situation develops? Please will the Leader of the House pass that message on to DEFRA from me?
Ms Harman: I know that this issue demands urgent attention, and the points that my hon. Friend makes are very forceful. This needs to be looked at right away, but there will, of course, be an opportunity to discuss these matters when there is a general debate on food and farming next Thursday.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) raises a very important issue for all the farmers who are members of that co-operative, and I hope that it will be debated.
First, may I join in the tributes to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)? He entertained us in the debate on the idea of a Dissolution yesterday evening, despite having been reshuffled to the Foreign Office. My only regret is that the Leader of the House was not able to join us for that debate as well. One would have thought that the Dissolution of the House was a business of the House matter—but it seems that as far as the Cabinet was concerned, it was a matter for Wales, and Wales only. In any case, the Leader of the House has survived in the Cabinet—she is one of the few Members who have done so—and we are glad about that.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) raised the issue of the machinery of government. The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was created only two years ago in a great splash of publicity. I have with me a letter from the then Secretary of State, who has since been reshuffled, in which he says that the new Department gives him the opportunity
“to make a real difference to people’s lives”—
a difference that he describes as “enormous and very exciting.” He goes on to say that the Department
“will provide a strong, integrated and permanent voice across Government for effective investment in research, science and skills at all levels”.
This “exciting” and “permanent” addition lasted for only two years, however, and then disappeared in order to gratify Lord Mandelson. It cannot be right for government to be conducted in this way, without recourse to Parliament, without any parliamentary opportunity to debate the practicalities and cost-benefit analysis of such changes. I invite the Leader of the House to give the House the opportunity to discuss how government is arranged, because such changes cannot be made on a whim. There are costs involved and practical consequences, and we should have the opportunity to debate them.
I note that the only opportunity to discuss the economy next week will be provided by the Opposition. The Government, having given us an assurance every week that there will be such an opportunity, have failed to provide one. However, we need a debate very soon on the prospects for public sector spending. We know now that the Conservatives are committed to 10 per cent. cuts, but we suspect that the Government, too, are committed to cuts in public spending. Would it not be better to have an honest, open and grown-up debate about the prospects for public spending, so that we can actually see what the consequences will be for our public services?
May we also have a debate on the probation service? Cuts in this area will have a very dangerous effect on our country, and we now know that £120 million is to be cut from the probation service budget by 2012. Probation work is a difficult enough job without the reduction in manpower that will result from that cut. We all know that the probation service is essential to protecting the public, so may we have a debate about what is envisaged?
I was tempted to ask the former Deputy Leader about my final point in the course of last night’s debate, but he is at the Foreign Office now, and therefore does not know the answer, so I will ask the Leader of the
House. The Prime Minister has come up with a raft of parliamentary and constitutional reforms from the “committee on public safety”, or whatever it is called, which he urges us all now to embrace. Can the Leader of the House give me a clear timetable for implementing those proposals? Unless we implement them as a matter of urgency, the public will not believe these are genuine urgent reforms; they will believe they are simply yet more spin to get the Prime Minister out of a difficult situation.
Ms Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman, too, for his comments about the former Deputy Leader of the House, and I would like to take the opportunity to welcome warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), who is going to be an excellent successor to the previous excellent Deputy Leader of the House. On the machinery of government changes, we should all recognise that what will help the economy for the future is having a strong economy based on science, technology, research, manufacturing and higher education. So bringing those all together in a very powerful Department at the heart of central Government, which will work with all the regional development agencies, and with Scotland and Wales, is important. That is what lies behind this new machinery of government.
As for the economic debate, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that there will be two Opposition day debates on Monday, and they will touch on the economy. There will be a debate on European affairs on Tuesday, which is bound to have the economy as a central issue because the global economic crisis obviously has to be tackled at the European and international level, as well as the national level. One in 10 of the jobs in this country depend on Europe, and he can certainly be confident that for Labour Members the economic dimension will be very much to the fore in the debate that we have scheduled for Tuesday 16 June. In addition, on Wednesday 17 June there will be a debate on the Business Rate Supplements Bill, so what with the Opposition day, and debates on European affairs and on the Business Rate Supplements Bill, enough debate on the economy has been scheduled for next week. If the hon. Gentleman wants, he can suggest a further such debate by way of a topical debate—but I did not think that that was necessary.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned public spending, and he was right to say that the Conservatives have revealed that they would cut it. They have already shown that public spending will have to be cut to pay for their changes to inheritance tax, which help the wealthiest, and for their wish to pay back debt quickly at the expense of cutting public services. They have already said that they want to cut public investment this year and next—right in the middle of a recession. The Government are determined to ensure that we have public investment not only to help us through the recession, but to sustain important public services for the future. Of course we will have to pay back debt, but our choice on tax is to increase the rate for the top rate taxpayers to 50 per cent., rather than to give huge inheritance tax cuts for a few thousand millionaires.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the probation service, and he will doubtless be able to seek to put his questions directly to Justice Ministers at Justice questions next week. There has been a 70 per cent. real-terms increase in probation funding over the past 10 years—
Hon. Members: It has all gone on computers.
Mr. Heath: Computers that don’t work.
Ms Harman: It has not all gone on computers that don’t work; there has been an increase of more than one third in the staff, and reoffending rates have dropped.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): May we have an early debate on the engineering and steel industry? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and I have asked for an urgent meeting with the First Secretary of State, because although there are some welcome signs of recovery, the lag-time for steel is considerable and orders on the books are down by half. We could be facing a serious situation—there is potential for closures—in the engineering and steel industry. That would mean that as a recovery takes hold we would be importing the steel, which until now has been made in Britain. We need some temporary bridging help, and that should be discussed fully in this House. If it is not, can the Leader of the House urge the First Secretary of State to find time, among all his other responsibilities, to meet my colleagues and me to discuss this vital issue?
Ms Harman: I certainly will urge the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to meet my right hon. Friend and other Members of Parliament who are concerned about the issues that he has raised. Perhaps we should have a topical debate on the point he makes about the steel industry, and the effect of this situation not only on the constituency and the region that he represents, but on Teesside and the north-east. We have to ensure that we secure our manufacturing base in these difficult times. That is an issue for many Welsh Members of Parliament too, so I will take what he says not only as a request for a meeting with the Secretary of State, but as a suggestion for a topical debate next Thursday.
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): May we have a debate on food labelling? Has the Leader of the House seen the latest report from the Consumers Association, which reveals that a number of sandwiches that are on sale to the public labelled as “healthy” actually contain more salt than nine packets of crisps, and are awash with saturated fat? Should not our law require that salty, fatty rubbish be labelled as such?
Ms Harman: The right hon. Gentleman may find the opportunity to raise this issue in the general debate on Thursday 18 June.
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend understands the shock, anger, grief and disbelief of parents, and indeed the whole community of Plymouth, on learning of the arrest earlier this week of a nursery worker and the charges today. The police and social services are clearly offering support, but will she advise me and keep me informed of any appropriate opportunities to raise the issues that will inevitably flow from the concerns of the parents and the community?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) may not realise it, but this matter is now sub judice because there has been a charge. It is best that we move on.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |