|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
On a further issue needing urgent attention, and which might become the biggest threat to world peace in 2010, do the Government agree that Iran's continued failure to come to an agreement on its nuclear programme, and the mounting evidence of its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, make the need to agree vastly strengthened sanctions of immense and pressing importance? Will the Government commit during the recess to do their utmost to accelerate agreement on European Union sanctions and the new UN Security Council resolution that is urgently needed?
Ms Harman: Yes, I think that we can agree that we want to ensure that the threat from Iran, which we have never underestimated, is recognised with increasing sanctions. I would certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Once again, that is something else that the Foreign Secretary will be taking forward.
Mr. Hague: We know that the Foreign Secretary will be taking that forward, but the Prime Minister has twice announced new sanctions against Iran without them ever taking effect. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to ensure that an effective new wave of sanctions is set out, including a ban on any new European investment in Iranian oil and gas-something that he announced in the middle of last year-and serious financial sanctions such as those that exist in the United States? Will she ensure, as Leader of the House, that a statement will be made to Parliament early in the new year by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary about what this country, the European Union and the UN Security Council are prepared to do at this critical point?
How telling it is, however, that on this day, when we have seen employment rise, the number of people in work increase and the number of people claiming unemployment benefit fall for the first time in two years, those things have not had a mention. I would have thought that today was the day when the shadow Foreign Secretary would come to the House and admit that the Tories had got it wrong.
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen today's Daily Record, which exposed a legalised lending company charging an annual percentage rate of 2,639,538.9 per cent? Is it not about time that we followed the lead of European countries and put a cap on interest charges, especially in the run-up to Christmas?
Ms Harman: I congratulate the Daily Record on its campaign against loan-sharking. It is important that we inform everybody that Government-funded money advice centres are there to help people, that in all areas there are loan-sharking investigation teams and that people can look to their credit unions for help. For many families, there is a lot of pressure at Christmas, so they should take advice and use credit unions.
One of the Government's achievements is that the share of tax revenue in the economy has now fallen to the lowest level since the days of Harold Macmillan. Yet, this week, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs estimated that about £40 billion is not being collected and is being evaded. Where is that money? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the Leader of the House to wait. Government Back Benchers are in an especially boisterous mood today, but I want to make progress down the Order Paper and get as many people in as possible.
Ms Harman: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, tax revenue has fallen because if fewer houses are being bought and sold, stamp duty falls, and if unemployment increases, there are fewer people paying taxes. Corporation tax has also fallen. Tax revenue has fallen because this country has been hit by a global economic recession.
We have been determined to take measures to stop tax avoidance, and we think it important that an example be set not only in this House, but in the House of Lords. According to an old saying, there should be no taxation without representation. What about no representation without taxation? We will introduce legislation to ensure that people are domiciled, resident and ordinarily resident in order to sit in this House or in the House of Lords.
Dr. Cable: I take that point, but perhaps make it in a less partisan way- [ Interruption ]-and perhaps commend the leader of the Conservative party for the helpful suggestion of new legislation, based on Liberal Democrat proposals, so that Members of the Houses of Commons and Lords who are non-doms should not sit in Parliament. May I welcome the fact that there is such enthusiasm, from turkeys voting for Christmas, and suggest that the Leader of the House give immediate effect to their wishes, by bringing in an amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill, so that non-doms such as Lord Ashcroft can leave Parliament immediately?
Ms Harman: We certainly need transparency on the issue, and as I said, we will bring forward legislation. The hon. Gentleman is busy commending the Conservative party; at the risk of being accused of being partisan, I would like to complain about the Conservative party. The deputy chairman of the Conservative party made a promise to the honours committee-this pertains to the need for legislation-that he would make his tax affairs on shore. The Foreign Secretary- [ Interruption ]-the shadow Foreign Secretary-can tell us what the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury says he knows. Has Lord Ashcroft-
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op):
The Efford community in my constituency is a strong community, but does my right hon. and learned Friend
understand the shock, horror and dismay at the crimes for which a nursery worker received an indeterminate sentence yesterday? Will she work with me to ensure that the lessons of the serious case review, which can now move rapidly to a conclusion, are fully and speedily learned?
Ms Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend. Everybody has the utmost sympathy for the parents whose children were at that nursery and will expect, as there have been, stiff sentences in that case. If there are any lessons to be learnt, from what we hope is an exceptional incident, I am sure that they will be learnt by the serious case review panel.
Q2.  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): In 1998, the Government put into law their code for fiscal stability, since when the so-called golden rule on borrowing has been broken in every year since 2001. If we are to have any confidence in the announced Fiscal Responsibility Bill, can the deputy Prime Minister tell us what penalties will apply to Ministers who break that law? Will there be fines or loss of office-or worse-for such Ministers, or is this just another Labour gimmick?
Ms Harman: The Fiscal Responsibility Bill lays out a statutory responsibility and a statutory duty, and this House will hold Ministers to account. I would say that it is fiscally responsible to ensure that the economy grows and that we do not pull the plug on it. Although we are seeing encouraging signs, the recovery is still fragile. We want to ensure that we have fiscal responsibility when it comes to taxation to help the public finances and that those who are best off pay most. As well as putting the public finances back on a proper footing, we want to ensure that we protect public services. All of those are the fiscally responsible things to do.
Mr. William Bain (Glasgow, North-East) (Lab): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the best measures for tackling inequality of assets in this country is the child trust fund, which benefits 3,941 children in my constituency? Does she also agree that the very worst measure would be an inheritance tax cut for millionaires?
Ms Harman: The reason why none of my hon. Friend's constituents would benefit from the Conservatives' tax cuts for millionaires is that they live in Glasgow, not in Notting Hill Gate. He can rely on this Government to protect his constituents with measures such as the child trust fund.
Q3.  Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): On equality, given that in the past parliamentary decade, which ends today, Labour Cabinet Ministers have paid themselves an increase of more than £30,000, how does the Leader of the House justify the fact that the increase in Cabinet salaries alone is greater than the annual take-home wage of the people she is elected to represent?
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport said that the electrification of the midland main line was a matter not of whether but of when. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give her support to ensuring that that happens as soon as possible, as it is vital to the economy of the country?
Ms Harman: I give my strong support to the proposal that my hon. Friend has mentioned. It is important that we invest in our economic infrastructure-transport is an important part of that-as we have done consistently over the past 10 years.
Q4.  Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): This morning, I visited a homelessness project run by the charity Crisis. One in 20 of the people that it is likely to cater for this Christmas will be homeless ex-service personnel. Given everything that those people have already done to serve their country, is there more that the Government can do to honour the military covenant and to focus on serving the health and welfare needs of those people who have so bravely served us?
Ms Harman: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should do everything possible, as part of the military covenant, to support our serving military forces in the field, our ex-servicemen and women, and their families. If he would like to make any suggestions about this, I am sure that they would be well received by the Defence Secretary.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): My constituent, Leon Jones, was just 21 when he was killed in a fatal stabbing near his home recently, devastating his family, friends and the local community. Already, that local community has been proactive in raising awareness of the possession of knives, and of knife crime. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that such campaigns are needed, along with tough laws? Will she give the House an assurance that this Government will raise the minimum sentence for murder by knife from 15 to 25 years?
Ms Harman: First, I would like to express my sincere condolences-as my hon. Friend has done-to the family of Leon Jones for the terrible loss that they have suffered as a result of his tragic death. We have to take knife crime very seriously, and we are upgrading the sentencing to put it on a par with gun crime. Everything must be done to protect people and to send out the message that knife crime cannot be accepted.
Q5.  Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Is the Leader of the House aware that a planning application to build a massive distribution centre at Pyestock, on the border of my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), was refused by the local authority? The appeal was rejected by the inspector, yet an unelected Minister, Lord McKenzie, who knows nothing about the area, allowed the planning application to go through. Is this what the Government mean by supporting local democracy?
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman will know what the planning processes involve. They have been laid out and agreed under statute by this House, and if he had any proposals, he should have put them forward in the Planning Bill.
Mr. Anthony Wright (Great Yarmouth) (Lab): All the schools in my constituency have benefited immensely from the investment of this Government in terms of both staffing and capital costs. Just last week, the Great Yarmouth high school heard an announcement that it was going to receive £12.5 million from the Building Schools for the Future fund. Can my right hon. and learned Friend guarantee that any future Labour Government will continue with that Building Schools for the Future fund to ensure that investment in education continues?
Ms Harman: The Building Schools for the Future fund has been important not only to make up the backlog and legacy of disrepair in our schools but in ensuring that our young people and children are educated in the best possible facilities. It has also provided much-needed help for the construction industry at a time when private sector construction has been facing tremendous difficulties. That is one of the reasons why we have not pulled the plug on public investment in construction in the way that the Conservatives have insisted that we should.
Q6.  Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): Copenhagen is the land of make-believe and fairy tales. Does the Leader of the House have a favourite fairy tale? Could it be the Emperor's new clothes? Is she the little robber girl or is she really the princess?
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): The Leader of the House may recall on that on 7 May I drew to her attention the plight of migrant workers and those people whose papers are languishing in Lunar house, Croydon, where a parlous state is prevailing. Will she arrange for a meeting with the charity London Citizens and faith groups, including Bishop Patrick Lynch and his Anglican and Methodist colleagues, to discuss the problems of migrant workers and those people whose status here is yet to be determined?
Ms Harman: I will ensure that there is a meeting of the relevant Minister with London Citizens, which is a very good organisation to whose work I would like to pay tribute. I am sure that it will be reassured to know how fast the backlog is being reduced under the leadership of the Home Secretary.
Q7.  Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con):
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has mentioned the mega Pyestock warehouse on the borders of our constituencies. Is the deputy Prime Minister aware that the decision of the noble Lord, overruling 12,000 local residents and the local councils and her own inspector, was taken in the rather doubtful interests of employment, but against
the interests- [Interruption.]-because the jobs the Minister suggested might be created are very doubtful-but against the interests-
Ms Harman: I cannot assist the right hon. Gentleman further except to repeat my answer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). These are decisions made under a legal framework. They are made as ministerial decisions, but in the public interest. One public interest that the planning system is determined to promote is employment, and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with that.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) (Lab): On the subject of the Geneva Conventions Act, will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to reassert the principle of judicial independence and, in particular, the power of the courts to issue criminal process against anybody-whatever side they are on, whatever their status, rank or influence against whom good prima facie evidence has been laid?
Ms Harman: Of course that is the case. The courts act judicially and independently under the framework of law, both national and international, and we have to make sure that we not only guarantee judicial independence, but have the right legal framework.
Q8.  Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): Today, the UK Payments Council meets to determine the future use of cheques and it is anticipated that it will recommend their phasing out by 2018. Many older people and small businesses, especially those without access to the internet, continue to use cheques and value their convenience. What steps will the Government take to save the cheque and to ensure that vulnerable people and small businesses can continue to use this form of payment?
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman has made a significant point, particularly in relation to older people. The Equality Bill ensures that public authorities making those changes must take account of the interests of older people, and must not take steps that discriminate against them. We need to look to the future, but also to ensure that older people do not suffer as a result.
Q9.  Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the measures in the Local Transport Act 2008 that enable elected local transport authorities to introduce quality contracts giving them power to determine local bus routes, frequencies and fares? Does she agree that any proposal to revoke those powers would remove from local communities the right to make decisions about their own bus services, and would be entirely contrary to the principle of local democratic accountability?
Ms Harman: I think that those quality contracts represent an important step forward, and that it would be folly for the Local Transport Act powers to be revoked. That is one of the things that the Conservative party is threatening to do, and it should not happen.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Is not part of the problem the fact that we have an Administration run by Tweedledee and Tweedledum? As we approach 2010, if the Prime Minister really does want to give the people of this country a great new year cheer, he will announce a general election sooner rather than later.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|