| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I will announce the date of the pre-Budget report shortly, in the customary way. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has in the past argued that there should be opportunities to debate the issues raised in the pre-Budget report on the Floor of the House. I am mindful of that, and I will make absolutely sure that, as well as having the opportunity to discuss the economy in the Queen's Speech debates, there will be sufficient opportunities after the pre-Budget report for it to be debated on the Floor of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Public Administration Committee's report on lobbying. The Government's response has been published and the Committee considered it this morning. He mentioned pre-appointment hearings, no doubt in the context of the appointment of the Children's Commissioner and the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families. Since we introduced this new opportunity for Select Committees to play a part in the appointments process, which gives Select Committees more scope for action, there has been the appointment of the chair of the Statistics Board, as well as hearings on the appointments of the chairs of the Care Quality Commission and the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the chair-elect of Ofcom. There have also been a new Information Commissioner and chair of the Office for Legal Complaints. I have to hand a long list of all the pre-appointments hearings, which I could read out, but the point is that Select Committees are playing their part in pre-appointment hearings. However, it remains the case that under the structure that is in place the final decision is still for the Secretary of State. That is, no doubt, illuminated by the questions asked in the pre-appointment hearings.
On the Department for Work and Pensions written questions, the Deputy Leader of the House will meet DWP Ministers to make sure that there is a prompter response to the House. This is an important issue. All Ministers should respond promptly to Members' questions about their Department's responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the choice of subjects for topical debates. I have to tell the House that there were no proposals from any party's Front or Back-Bench teams for the topical debate this week. I encourage both Front and Back-Bench Members to make proposals for the topical debate. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not choose to debate the Post Office. We did, of course, have a statement on Royal Mail earlier in the week. If we are to make topical debates work, we need suggestions to be made, and I invite him to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about keeping the House updated on Afghanistan. As he said, there was a statement on that last week. As well as answering questions every week in the House of Commons at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister appears before the Liaison Committee.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD):
Last week, I drew attention to the activities of the banks and the fact that they are carrying on with blithe indifference to what they have occasioned in the economy of this country. They are going back to paying their big bonuses, they are unreformed and they are not providing a service to local businesses. That view has, again, been shared by the Governor of the Bank of England during
the past week, so may we have a debate on the position of the banks and, ideally, on reform of the banks-something that the Government have clearly decided they cannot face?
Before the debate on climate change, may we have a debate on statistics? Sir Michael Scholar, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, is again calling the Government to account for abusing statistics-this time the official figures for greenhouse gas reductions, which he described as exaggerated. Elsewhere, the energy efficiency figures have been described as "grossly" inflated. We must have accurate figures on such issues if we are to do a good job. Perhaps it was the complacency occasioned by this abuse of statistics that allowed so many Members of this House last night to refuse to allow this House-this Parliament-to enter the 10:10 campaign. Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for this House to debate that again? Perhaps Labour Members will then be able to repent at leisure and decide that they would like this House to join a movement that is crossing the country at the moment.
May I make a bid for one of the topical debates that will take place over the next few weeks? As we approach Remembrance day, it would be entirely appropriate to debate the military covenant. Many colleagues, from all parts of the House, have serious concerns and valuable things to say about the extent to which this Parliament and the country honour our covenant with our armed forces. May we make that the subject of one of our debates over the next couple of weeks?
May we have a debate on police and police community support officer numbers? Although numbers vary around the country and, happily, some forces are still increasing their numbers, other forces are substantially reducing them. The number of police in Avon and Somerset has decreased, and this week we have heard that Somerset county council is, disgracefully, reducing its funding for PCSOs by a quarter. I cannot believe that it is right to cut front-line policing. That flies in the face of what people across the country expect, so may we have a debate on the issue at the earliest opportunity?
Lastly, I am unconvinced by the Leader of the House's responses on the pre-confirmation hearings. Only one adverse report has come from a Select Committee and it was rejected within hours; unless the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and other Secretaries of State take the process seriously, there is no point in having it.
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman talked about bank lending practices and bonuses. We take the view that banks must be both building up their capital reserves to make sure they do not pose the risk that they did in the past and ensuring that they lend fairly to help businesses to recover and the economy to start growing again. Lending issues are very important indeed, and the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have made it clear that the Government's position is that there can be no return to business as usual on bonuses. There will be a debate on the economic recovery later this afternoon and that will provide an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to raise the important issues he has just mentioned.
On greenhouse gas statistics and energy conservation statistics, a climate change debate took place this week and there will a further such debate on 5 November,
when the question of Members' participation in the 10:10 campaign can be raised.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned policing and police community support officer and police numbers. One of the most important things that the Government have done over the past 12 years has been to increase police numbers, to ensure neighbourhood beat policing in every neighbourhood and to ensure that PCSOs work alongside those police to reassure the public and tackle crime. He will be able to ask Ministers directly for more information about that at Home Office questions next week.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the military covenant. We had a full day's debate on defence last week. I agree that the military covenant is very important, not only for the serving forces and for veterans but for service families. It is difficult at the best of times to be bringing up a family when one's husband is away from home, but it is even more important if they are in a dangerous situation in Afghanistan. We need to pay tribute not only to our armed services but to their wives and families. That is why I am working with Ministers across Government to ensure that we recognise and support the contribution that armed services wives and families make to the defence forces.
Mr. Speaker: Order. As 28 Members are seeking to catch my eye, simple, short supplementary questions and comparably brief replies are required.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if we care about the low esteem in which our profession is held, one easy win would be to put an end to the 82-day annual recess and sit in September, as we once agreed to do? Will she arrange an early debate on the subject so that we can get the excuses out of the way as early as possible?
Ms Harman: We obviously keep under review the balance between the work that Members of Parliament do in the House of Commons and the work that they do in their constituencies. We should not go along with the view that the sole preoccupation of a Member of Parliament once they are elected is to be in Westminster, sitting in the Chamber or working in our Committees. We must recognise, acknowledge and support the work that is done in constituencies. In this day and age, it is no longer good enough for people to be elected and to say to their constituents, "See you again in five years." They expect us to be working in our local communities and that is why we need to have recess time as well as times when the House is in session.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Should there not be a debate next week on joined-up government following the Chancellor's statement that it is a very good time to sell state assets such as the Dartford crossing, the student loan book and the Tote, whereas the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was inappropriate to go ahead with the part-privatisation of Royal Mail because there was nobody to buy it? That is not joined-up government.
Ms Harman: The Prime Minister dealt with that point during parliamentary questions only yesterday, so I feel no need to add to it.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): Further to the request for a debate on bank lending, could we have a debate specifically on mortgage lending? One of my constituents had the offer of a mortgage withdrawn by NatWest within two working days of completion on the basis that the vendors had not owned the property for more than six months. When it was pointed out that that was not even in the mortgage application, NatWest told my constituents that it was in the process of adding it. A debate on mortgage lending in particular and on the banks' practices in general would be welcome.
Ms Harman: I shall draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of Treasury Ministers. It is important that there is no reckless lending by the banks, but nor should banks and building societies be turning off the taps for the housing market. It is important that we rebuild confidence and activity in the housing market.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater) (Con): The Leader of the House is well aware that the Government want to get as much renewable energy as they can and wind turbines are one way of doing that, but they are being introduced in areas where they should not be. Nine turbines will be applied for on the levels in Somerset-an area of outstanding importance to the United Kingdom. Under the current Government proposals, the application will be put through. Please may we have a debate to discuss where these turbines should go so that their placing is not to the detriment of the heritage of this country?
Ms Harman: It is no good saying that we all want more renewable energy if, whenever there is a proposal to ensure that renewables can be used, Opposition Members immediately raise objections. In the Planning Act 2008, we set out a new framework that ensured we can both protect areas of outstanding natural beauty and get a move on with renewables so that we have energy independence and help with tackling climate change.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): The dispute in Royal Mail is damaging to the industry, families, communities and businesses and to the Government's reputation. I cannot think of a single more topical subject for a topical debate than the future of Royal Mail, so will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for one in next week's business?
Ms Harman:
We have to pick the subject for the topical debate on Monday and we knew that we were having a statement on Tuesday on the Royal Mail dispute, so we did not pick it for the topical debate this afternoon. I remind the House of what the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said. In this situation, it is important that both sides get round the table, talk and keep talking until all matters in dispute are resolved. If they cannot find a resolution, they should look to ACAS to help them to do so. Both sides within Royal Mail need to resolve this-they know
what the issues are and they know what has to be resolved, and I continue to urge them to do that. I think that that is the right approach.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): When may we have a debate on agriculture? I am sure that we are long overdue one. It tends to get crowded out of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. Might it be a subject for next Thursday's topical debate?
Ms Harman: We have DEFRA questions next week, so the hon. Gentleman can ensure that agriculture is crowded into those questions by seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House-and, of course, the real deputy leader of the Labour party-whether we can have a date on the implementation date for the temporary and agency workers directive? Fairer treatment for vulnerable workers has been the subject of two private Members' Bills in this House as well as of a joint declaration from the TUC, the Government and the CBI that it would be implemented in this Parliament. May we have an urgent debate on what is going on with the directive? There is considerable anger among Labour Members at reports that it might be put off until 2011.
Ms Harman: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the unions that he has worked with on their work on the important issue of protecting agency workers, not only to protect them from exploitation but to ensure that they are not used to undercut the terms and conditions of permanent workers. The Government have issued a consultation paper on the substance of the implementation of the temporary agency workers directive and on the timing of that implementation. We remain committed to it and it will be implemented.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): Has the Leader of the House had a bid from the Home Secretary or the Welsh Secretary for a Bill to proscribe the British National party? I hope not, but is not Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, quite right to say that it is for Parliament to make that decision and that people, including Ministers, should not seek to outsource censorship to the BBC?
Ms Harman: In this country, we are very proud of our commitment to free speech but we are also proud of our commitment to a diverse community and to being anti-racist. The fact remains that the British National party is a racist and divisive party. Its constitution prohibits from membership anyone who is not indigenously Caucasian. That is an apartheid constitution and has no place in British politics. The BBC has made its decision about "Question Time" and no doubt it will reflect on it once it sees the outcome tonight.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab):
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Yvonne Hossack, the heroic lawyer who fought off efforts to get her struck off, is now facing her fourth audit in five years and action from Wolverhampton council to get a civil restraint order and costs against her for standing up for
a 106-year-old woman? Will my right hon. and learned Friend organise a debate on the supervision of solicitors so that we can talk about this appalling vendetta against a woman who has championed many of the most vulnerable people in this country, including some of my constituents?
Ms Harman: I shall raise that question with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and shall ask him to write to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate entitled "The Recording of Pecuniary Interests by Members Voting"? She will have read Mr. Speaker's statement and will know that I, for example, have a pecuniary interest in Equitable Life. There is no way in which Members who are voting can declare that pecuniary interest. It is very unsatisfactory and the public will not understand it. May we look again at how we can record the fact that we have a pecuniary interest in matters on which we have to vote?
Ms Harman: I will look at the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes, in the context of what Mr. Speaker has said, and write to him. If there are wider implications, there will obviously be an opportunity to issue a written ministerial statement.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): At its press conference yesterday, the postal workers union made serious accusations that Ministers were part of the external forces interfering in the negotiations over this unfortunate dispute. Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for any future statement by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to address those accusations?
Ms Harman: I think the Secretary of State has addressed the question of his personal role in the matter. He has said that the position he and the Government had taken was that both sides within Royal Mail itself need to resolve this. This is an industrial dispute that needs to be solved by the management and the unions. That is important for those who work in Royal Mail and for its customers and the organisation's future.
Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): May we have a debate on early-day motion 2067 on Territorial Army training cuts?
[That this House salutes the service of members of the Territorial Army (TA); deplores the freezing of TA training; notes the adverse impact this will have on generic war fighting capability, morale, recruitment and retention; further notes that the measure conflicts with the Cottam Strategic Review of Reserves published in April 2009 which the Government accepted in full; and calls on the Government to reverse its decision immediately. ]
The cuts are having a very detrimental effect. In the early hours of this morning, a bomb was discovered to have been planted at the TA base in my constituency. Reserve forces are of great value to the communities that they serve, especially in Northern Ireland. More than 1,000 men and women from Northern Ireland have served on operational duties overseas. May we have a debate on this important subject, to reinforce the importance of the TA to the Army and our country?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |