The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): This Government's guiding principles are freedom, fairness and responsibility. We want to remove barriers to equal opportunities and to build a fairer society. The new public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010 will require councils to have regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between different groups, including between men and women and people from different ethnic backgrounds.
Valerie Vaz: I am grateful for the Minister's response. However, my figures show that there are 248 local authorities where women are not chief executives or leaders. In London, there is a black and minority ethnic population of 31% but only one chief executive officer from that community. Could he therefore confirm that he will encourage local authorities to use sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act, now in force, to redress that imbalance?
Andrew Stunell: I am very happy to give that assurance and to say, first, that her own local authority of Walsall has a good record in relation to the employment of BME staff. We need to recognise that local government has worked hard on this. The Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government has been working on it strongly. We had a conference in March-the Yes We Can conference-and are working towards a December follow-up. We need to remind local authorities that they have a duty under the Equality Act, but they also have a power to take positive action. I am certainly happy to work with the hon. Lady to achieve that.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Will my hon. Friend please confirm that offering salary packages to local government bureaucrats in excess of that earned by the Prime Minister will not form part of the strategy to recruit such people?
Andrew Stunell: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had some stern words to say about local authorities that do not take the hint and has called on those earning high salaries in the public sector to take a voluntary pay cut.
2. Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of voluntary organisations providing housing services for local authorities on the potential effects on that sector of future local government funding plans. 
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps): My Department has consulted widely with the voluntary sector in relation to the provision of housing services for local authorities, and we have listened carefully to the points they have raised. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have, for example, protected the homelessness grant, providing £400 million; protected the funding for disabled facilities grant; and minimised reductions to the Supporting People programme over the spending review.
Mr Wright: The voluntary groups in my constituency, such as Manor residents association, together in partnership with Housing Hartlepool and Hartlepool borough council, provide much-needed services such as handyman services, financial advice to tenants and tackling antisocial behaviour. Given that they derive their income from local authorities and the registered social landlord, and given yesterday's announcement of a real-terms cut of 26% in local authority budgets and the cutting by half of the social housing budget, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the voluntary groups where they will get their money from and how these services can be maintained?
Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman will know the backdrop to this, which is that when he was a Minister the Government literally ran out of money, and not just money from then taxpayers but money from the future, so some steps had to be taken. Despite that, however, we have still managed to protect all those different budgets, particularly that for Supporting People, which will be very important to his local authority: it is almost certainly where those voluntary services are getting quite a lot of their funding. We also heard the Chancellor announce yesterday a £100 million transition fund. I can further tell the hon. Gentleman that I am today announcing £12.25 million for local authorities and the voluntary sector to help households affected by changes in housing benefits. There is a whole package of services there. We absolutely recognise the need to protect the most vulnerable; it is a shame that his Government did not do the same as they spent all the money.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): That was very interesting from the Minister, but it is clear that yesterday the Chancellor announced devastating cuts to house building and local government funding. Is it not the case that while across Whitehall Departments average cuts are 19%, town halls up and down the country will lose 28% of their funding?
We have already covered the backdrop. We know that the financial crisis was incredibly sharp and, as has been said, if the Opposition do not have a plan they cannot criticise the plans that have been put in place. Everybody in the country will want to know what the right hon. Lady's plans would have been. However, as it happens, and as she mentions house building as part of her critique, let me tell her that in the 13 Labour years, there was a net gain of just 14,000 affordable homes. We will build more affordable homes in every single year of our Government than Labour did in all its 13 years put together.
Caroline Flint: I thank the Minister for his words of welcome. There may come a time when we agree across the Dispatch Box, but today is not that day. The Chancellor was right about one thing yesterday: the cuts are the Government's choice, and their choice is to dump the cuts on local communities. I am afraid the Secretary of State and his team have failed to stand up for local councils. Can the Minister tell me how many jobs in the public, private and voluntary sectors will be lost as a result of the Secretary of State's failure?
Grant Shapps: It is really no good not having a plan and then criticising the Government when they come up with a serious plan to rescue this country and this economy from the rocks that we were surely headed towards when the right hon. Lady was on the Government Benches. We have set out our plans in great detail, and we look forward to Her Majesty's Opposition getting round to setting out some of theirs.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps): I am pleased to announce that the new homes bonus will commence in April 2011, which means that local authorities that grant planning permission now will benefit from it next year. I can also announce that the bonus will last a total of six years, facilitating the building of many more homes in every area of the country.
Grant Shapps: Absolutely. Until now there has been only one way to get into social housing, and for most people that way has not led to their getting a social home. That is why housing waiting lists doubled under the last Government from 1 million to nearly 2 million. There was only a single offer, and not enough homes were being built. We have introduced affordable rent, which means that rents can be up to 80% of the market rent. That is a more viable option, and it means that less money can produce more homes and that new investment will go into providing homes for the most needy in society, who were so badly let down by a Government who produced only a 14,000 net gain in affordable homes during a 13-year period in office.[Official Report, 27 October 2010, Vol. 517, c. 5MC.]
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): Will the Minister not accept that the new homes bonus scheme is in chaos? Can he explain what the incentive will be for local planning authorities, which according to the policy that the Government have set out will receive only 15% of the receipts, with 85% being returned to the shire authorities outside unitary areas, which are not involved in the planning process? Will the incentive be 15%, or will it be greater?
Grant Shapps: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so confused about this. It is actually a very simple scheme, unlike ones such as the local housing delivery planning grant, which his Government used. That was so complex that literally nobody understood it or had any idea how much money would come in. Our scheme is simple. For every home built, there will be match funding for six years at the actual band price at which it is built. By the way, if it is affordable housing, 125% of receipts will be provided. We will consult on the split between district and upper-tier authorities, but something like 80% is likely to go to the planning authority. That will be a massive incentive for this country to get out and build the homes that Labour failed to build during its 13 years.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD): Can the Minister confirm that housing market renewal pathfinder funding will continue in the short or medium term, to enable the removal of all unwanted and uninhabited properties in the pathfinder areas? The acquisition and removal of those properties will clear inner areas of our towns and cities to enable the new affordable homes that we desperately need.
Grant Shapps: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have visited pathfinder schemes on many occasions, and some were very good and some had some problems. We will complete all the committed HMR schemes, and we will then roll the funding up into the regional development fund to continue the good work.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab): The Minister can try, but he really should not duck responsibility for his own policies. When he announced this particular scheme in the summer, he told councils, "Build now, develop now, and you'll get substantial benefits in the future." Can he confirm that 70 local authorities have cancelled developments, 160,000 homes have not been built, the house builders are taking the Government to court and his scheme has been kicked into the long grass of 2011? Just how many homes will be built in the next 12 months?
Grant Shapps: May I start by welcoming the new shadow Housing Minister to her post? I hope that she does it for as long as I did-I shadowed many different Front Benchers. In the autumn, she made an interesting statement. She said that too many people thought her Government had not listened to them about housing. The difference is that we will certainly listen, and the new homes bonus will reward all the planning applications that have already been made where homes have yet to be built, so it will include all those homes. It will provide a far more compelling incentive than the local planning housing delivery grant ever did. The Conservative party has a proud record of house building. We have already heard that the previous Government managed a net addition of just 14,000 affordable homes in 13 years.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): My Department has been at the forefront of transparency, and the Department's public bodies will publish their senior salaries and expenses data on Friday 29 October.
David T. C. Davies: We know from information that has already been published that the heads of the Audit Commission spent thousands of pounds wining and dining people in a gentleman's club. We also know that the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is chauffeur-driven in his own personal car. May I therefore congratulate the Secretary of State on his actions to ensure that those quango bosses publicise their expenses and salaries, and urge him to do more so that they are held to the same standards of transparency and scrutiny as Members of Parliament, who represent the people?
Mr Pickles: In fairness to the Audit Commission, my hon. Friend will want me to point out that the gentlemen's clubs are those in the west end, not Soho. I have been concerned for some time about some of the Audit Commission's excesses. One of my first decisions was to veto a suggested £240,000 salary for a chief executive. I was not particularly impressed by the chairman's suggestion of a whip-round among members of the private sector that audit to top up his salary. I thought that that suggestion might well have been misinterpreted.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): The previous Government's regional spatial strategies were revoked on 6 July, and the remaining provisions will be repealed through the localism Bill, which will be introduced later this year. Along with the new homes bonus, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government described, it is a key element of our plans to return decisions on housing and planning to local communities, allowing them to shape their neighbourhoods.
Chris Skidmore: Green belt land in my constituency and elsewhere remains under threat as a direct result of the previous Government's regional spatial strategies. What steps will the Government take to ensure greater green belt protection in future?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the problems of the previous regional spatial strategies was the imposition on local communities. In my hon. Friend's area, the region forced green belt reviews on his community. The same applies to Manchester, Liverpool, West Yorkshire, Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead, Woking, Guildford, Harlow and Oxford. That is not the way to
proceed. If one wants consent for development, one must involve local people and allow them to determine the character of their area.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): Yesterday the Prime Minister said it was important to protect economic growth, but actions speak louder than words. Since the Government came to power, local authorities have already ditched plans for 160,000 homes-1,300 every day. Is it not the case that abolishing the regional spatial strategy has paralysed the planning system, forced building workers on to the dole and contributed to slower economic growth?
May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench? He is an ambitious sort. I do not know whether it reflects on the current performance of the Leader of the Opposition, but I note that the hon. Gentleman has registered the website chriswilliamsonlabourleader.com. I do not know whether that is the start of a glorious career here.
Mr Speaker: Order. I have to tell the Minister that although that is a fascinating nugget of information, it has nothing to do with regional spatial strategies, on which I know that he will now focus.
Greg Clark: I am glad that you are as fascinated by that as I am, Mr Speaker. If we want a serious discussion, it is important that we change the situation in which all planning applications in this country are seen to destroy quality of life and are fiercely resisted. That is the sad state of things, and we must understand that we need to unblock that. One way to do so is to ensure that communities benefit financially through incentives. The other is to allow local communities to help to specify and design the characters of their local neighbourhoods. If we do that, we can take some of the poison out of the system and have more new homes.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): I appreciate that my hon. Friend has a distinct personal interest in the welfare of elected mayors. Decisions on the number of councillors in any local authority are handled by the independent Local Government Boundary Commission, in which process I have no role.
Philip Davies: As the Secretary of State indicated, I should declare that my father is the elected mayor of Doncaster-quite how, nobody knows. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be bizarre if his introduction of elected mayors around the country led to an increase in costs and an increased layer of bureaucracy in local government? Therefore, when introducing elected mayors, should he not take the opportunity to reduce the number of councillors in those areas at the same time?
It is within the purview of a local authority to ask the Local Government Boundary Commission at any time to review its boundaries and the number of members. Mansfield district council has done that, and is moving from multi-member wards to single-
member wards. When the commission publishes its recommendations, they will be laid in the House under the usual 40-day rule.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): How does the Secretary of State square the imposition of elected mayors in the 12 largest cities in this country with his commitment to localism? How does that work if people will not be asked whether they would like a mayor or whether they wish to continue with local councillors?
Mr Pickles: The hon. Lady is mistaking this Government's position with that of the previous one, who would often impose things on local people. She seems to be suggesting that we would somehow impose mayors on those 12 cities, but of course we will not-that is completely out of the question. The proposals will be subject to referendums. Once we know the views of the people in those 12 cities, we will move on to the election of a mayor if people vote for that.
Mr Pickles: We have been in discussions with the Local Government Association and we will have a code of conduct, which seems to me to be a sensible way of doing that- [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) seems to think that the boards have achieved something, but their only achievement has been to be petty, silly and pointless.
The latest example of that concerns a Green party councillor, Jason Kitcat, who placed unofficial video footage of a council meeting on his website. He has been referred to the board for not showing his council respect. With the joyous news of the Lady Thatcher's improving health, perhaps I could say to Councillor Kitcat: "YouTube if you want to."
8. George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con): What guidance his Department provides to local authorities planning large housing developments in their area on consultation with residents of neighbouring local authority areas likely to be affected. 
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps):
Local authorities must follow the regulations on preparing their local plans and consult widely with local people affected by proposals. They must also
ensure that that public consultation has real meaning and that it is taken into account when putting local plans together.
George Hollingbery: I am grateful for that answer and I should like to push the issue of cross-border co-operation a little further. Under the Government's new homes bonus scheme, it is reasonable to suppose that some local authorities will be tempted to build large settlements at their boundaries, where the disbenefit accrues to local authorities across the boundary. Does the Minister have any plans to ensure that the income flowing from the new homes bonus will flow across local authority boundaries where appropriate?
Grant Shapps: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. First, we are introducing a duty to co-operate, so that one authority has to be talking to its neighbour in order to get its local plan signed off. Secondly, I can confirm today that the flow of new money from the new homes bonus will be some £900 million, even before top-slicing in the later years, so it will be a significant amount. In that context, there is nothing to prevent one local authority from speaking to its neighbour and saying, "Look, we'd like to build these homes here, but we recognise that this would have some impact on you there. We will come to a deal with you, and if we're both happy it will go into our local plan."
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): When a local authority has decided to take the money from the homes bonus, little though it is, at the expense of a neighbouring local authority or in the face of local opposition, whose views will take precedence-the local authority taking the money, local people, or the neighbouring local authority?
Grant Shapps: I am amused that the hon. Gentleman thinks that billions of pounds is little money: it shows how the Opposition thought about taxpayers' money when they were in power. It is a large amount of money and it will make a significant difference. The answer-although I know this is a strange concept to Opposition Members-is something called democracy. It is called asking voters what they want and putting a local plan in place that reflects the local population's wishes, not what the Minister wants here in Whitehall, as happened under the old regional spatial strategies.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that his guidance seems to be being ignored by the Planning Inspectorate, which is insisting on making the five-year housing supply paramount in its decisions, causing great concern in Burbage and Groby in my constituency as representations are made and ignored?
Grant Shapps: It is enormously important that the Planning Inspectorate notices that there has been a change of Government and therefore changes in policy. If it is not entirely certain, we will have the localism Bill next month and I hope that that will clarify the matter once and for all.
9. Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the effect on levels of employment in small businesses of reductions in his Department's funding to local government. 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): The Secretary of State has had discussions on a number of topics with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. We are aware of the need to offer continued support to small businesses in this difficult economic climate. That is why we are committed to providing local authorities with the freedom to determine how best to allocate their resources to meet local priorities.
Mr Brown: In many areas, the local authority is far and away the largest employer and as a result many small and medium enterprises depend heavily on it for contracts and to keep their businesses going. The tightening up that we will see will therefore inevitably lead to small businesses suffering as a result of what has happened in the last 24 hours.
Andrew Stunell: I certainly agree with the first two thirds of what the hon. Gentleman says, but his conclusion is wrong. In the Secretary of State's conversations with colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, they drew our attention-as did the Chancellor-to the small business rate relief, which gives 100% relief for properties, up to £6,000. There is also the holiday on national insurance contributions for the first three years of start-up companies, and this Department is responsible for the local enterprise partnerships, on which we are working closely with the Federation of Small Businesses to ensure that they can play an effective part.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that a large proportion of our housing programme, which will spend £6.5 billion, will of course involve the small construction sector. Our regional growth fund of £1.4 billion will also contribute. We are working hard to ensure that councils understand their role in procurement and delivery of services to ensure that small companies and the voluntary and community sector can be involved. If he asks the question-
Andrew Stunell: The figures announced yesterday were in relation to a base that was set by the outgoing Labour Government. I do not know whether that is the complete answer my hon. Friend wants, but I am happy to write to him further if he needs me to.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that on the back of the cuts announced yesterday, 82,000 jobs will go in Yorkshire. Could the Minister describe the mechanism to avoid a further double whammy for the city of Sheffield-its individuals, businesses and communities-from the 26% reduction in the overall grant to the city over the next four years and the 18% reduction in the area-based grant, which is theoretically being un-ring-fenced, but which will actually not exist at all unless there is a mechanism to retain it in the communities that were receiving it?
Andrew Stunell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but would remind him that the economy has shrunk by 6%, and that was before the general election. Many, many people in the private and public sectors have already faced the devastating consequences of that. We are setting that right.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): Will the Minister confirm that there will be many opportunities for economic development in York and North Yorkshire, which have suffered owing to the mass investment in places such as Boeing in Sheffield, under the local economic partnerships?
Andrew Stunell: I hope that each local economic partnership will be a focus for growth, jobs and development. Obviously there is competition, but we need every part of the country to grow quickly, to get back to the level of prosperity that we should have.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): Small businesses all over Britain depend on £20 billion of local government procurement. PWC has predicted 500,000 job losses in the private sector, with 100,000 in the construction industry and 180,000 job losses in business services. Does the Minister therefore not agree that it is an abrogation of the Government's responsibility to have failed to conduct an impact assessment study of the effect of their actions in the public sector on the private sector, thereby avoiding coming clean? Does he also agree that the evidence is clear: for every job that goes in local government, at least one will go in Britain's small businesses?
Andrew Stunell: Let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role, and say that I would have thought that, with his background, he would be the last person to put a lot of dependence on a private consultant's report about what was going to happen next. From our point of view, we think that we have got the right remedy for Britain's ills, and I believe that in a year's time he will agree with us.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): Good progress is being made on removing barriers to local action in the vanguard areas. In my hon. Friend's constituency, we are working with the local community in the Eden valley on the roll-out of next-generation broadband, on advancing neighbourhood planning and on devolving budgets to communities. Similar progress is being made in the other areas, as part of my commitment to put my civil servants, in my Department, at the service of communities across Britain.
Rory Stewart: I thank the Minister for the work that his team is doing to support the Eden communities and the councils, and for the real progress on broadband. What lessons and experience can we take from Eden and apply to other parts of the country?
Greg Clark: Let me pay tribute to the leadership that my hon. Friend has given during his six months in this House, and extend an invitation to other hon. Members across the House, who are leaders in their communities. I have made an offer: if we believe, as I do, that the best ideas come from people in communities, rather than just from senior officials in Whitehall, then we need to make the resources of the Department available to people in communities. I extend this invitation to all hon. Members: if they have good ideas that are facing barriers that need busting, let us know and we will help.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab): Given that one of the building blocks of the big society, which I believe in, is the voluntary sector, will the Minister comment on the decision by Croydon council to axe the grants to more than 20 voluntary organisations? Those organisations form the great majority of those that the council has been funding, and they include the Croydon rape and sexual abuse support centre. Does he agree that if the same thing happens nationwide, that will not be about building the good society-or, if he prefers, the big society-but will put us on a slippery slope towards a painful and bad society?
Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman and I agree, I think, that it is highly desirable that we should transfer power from the centre to local communities, and that involves councils, too. I do not expect them to pull up the drawbridge in the town hall when we decentralise power and resources to them. I look to councils to increase their contacts with the voluntary sector as part of the decentralisation initiative, which affects everyone.
"real fears that spending cuts will impact adversely on the capacity of the charitable and not-for-profit sector. Far from taking on more... it may be able to do rather less."
That comment on the big society was from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. Can the Minister tell the House just how he expects expansion in a sector that will suffer loss of grants and support-as we have heard, it is already happening-due to the 28% budget cuts over the next four years that this Government have forced on to local councils?
Greg Clark: May I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box? She has long experience in local government, which I know takes these issues very seriously. One thing that councils and central Government have had the chance to do in the past is to hold on to power and to avoid bringing in the voluntary sector as of right. I think we need to change that. The hon. Lady will see that, in the localism Bill, we are going to entrench rights for community groups to take over some of the services of local authorities if they can demonstrate that they can have a more effective outcome. Rights, I think, rather than discretion, is the best source of guarantees for the sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): Reducing and minimising burdens in the planning system is essential if the system is to work effectively and if we are to remove a financial burden on the economy, which has been estimated in figures quoted in the Killian Pretty report as being up to £2.7 billion a year. That therefore forms a central part of the Government's reform proposals in the localism and decentralisation Bill and the national planning framework. We have already taken specific steps, with which I would be happy to acquaint the House in more detail if time permitted-for example, by consolidating 17 regulations into one and three preservation orders into one, saving £1.5 million already.
Richard Graham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The £400 million redevelopment project in the Gloucester Quays in my constituency was unnecessarily delayed for more than a year as a result of being called in by the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that local planning decisions are now precisely that, that they will no longer be subject to frequent interference by the Government and that today we can send a clear message to developers and investors-in Gloucester and elsewhere-that we are open for business without delay?
Robert Neill: Localising decision making and planning is central to the Government's policy. Ministers have made it clear that they will exercise the power to call in only very sparingly where matters of significant national interest and policy are concerned.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): Is the Minister aware that in looking at the abolition of the regional spatial strategies, the Select Committee is receiving evidence that because those strategies had an evidential base-not merely in respect of house building numbers, but in many other matters on which local development frameworks were based-many local authorities are now having to go back and redo that evidential base at a local level, causing an enormous amount of work and inconvenience to them? Did the Minister take account of those extra burdens when he decided to abolish the regional spatial strategies?
Robert Neill: The vast majority of local authorities I have spoken to greatly welcome the abolition of those strategies, which imposed undemocratic targets on them. There is no need to rework the evidence base-it is already there. We have given local authorities the power to revise the figures that were arbitrarily imposed on them from above.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark):
The coalition programme for government included a commitment to
a radical reform of the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their residents live. Our proposals to decentralise planning back to neighbourhoods will be set out in the localism Bill, which will be published shortly.
John Glen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Following recent discussions in my Salisbury constituency, particularly with individuals in Winterslow who have created parish plans, will the Minister comment on the role parish plans will play in influencing sustainable development in the planning process?
Greg Clark: My hon. Friend asks a very important question. I think neighbourhoods, parish councils and town councils, which intimately understand their areas, have been cut out of the planning process for too long. We will introduce rights in the localism Bill for neighbourhood plans to have statutory force so that people can actually have a say in how their communities develop.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): Bromborough Dock landfill site in my constituency desperately needs sustainable development. The Forestry Commission had a plan to turn it into a publicly accessible park, but that plan has now been withdrawn, following the abolition of the Northwest Regional Development Agency. What advice can the Minister give me about how to turn this former industrial site into a beautiful green riverside park, given the actions of his Government?
Greg Clark: I am very happy to take forward the hon. Lady's suggestion, and I will follow it up after this. I will make my team of civil servants available to her, to see whether we can help her with any barriers that might be preventing that from happening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): The coalition agreement contained a commitment to find a practical way to make small business rate relief automatic. We have had discussions with interested parties, and we are now assessing the options.
Mark Lancaster: Milton Keynes is a dynamic and entrepreneurial city, and the Government's moves on small business rate relief are most welcome, but will the Minister tell the House what more the Government could do to encourage local councils to be more flexible in offering different incentives to new businesses?
Robert Neill: We are considering the possibility of giving local authorities wide-ranging discretionary powers to grant business rate discounts, so that they can respond to local circumstances by reducing local businesses' bills. We are also taking steps to ensure that no new supplementary business rate can be imposed without the backing of local firms in a referendum.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): The Government will be making it much easier for communities to take on community assets, through the community right-to-buy provisions in the localism Bill. Following the spending review statement yesterday, we will shortly be announcing our plans to provide further funding to support communities in exercising that right. Communities can now get advice and practical help from the Government-funded asset transfer unit, and money is available this year through Communitybuilders for business development support and investment capital.
Stella Creasy: Residents living near the former St James street library in Walthamstow want to be part of the big society by buying the building and turning it into a community centre. The previous Government committed £20 million to an empowerment fund to help local people to make these things happen. Rights and announcements are all very well, but what actual funding can residents in my area expect to be able to bid for, to help to turn the rhetoric surrounding asset management into a reality?
Greg Clark: I know that the hon. Lady is a great champion for community facilities. She has had correspondence with me on this matter, and as a Co-operative party MP, she shares our belief that co-operatives have a great deal to offer. Perhaps I should refer to her as my hon. Friend in this context. The big society bank, which was announced by the Chancellor yesterday, will be expressly designed so that part of its purpose will be to make capital available, and I hope that her project will make one of the early applications to it.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): We have received many communications from various people who are interested in mayors, and it is our intention to introduce 12 mayors. We will also be introducing additional powers. I think the problem with mayors in the past is that they have been just another politician-[Hon. Members: "Boris!"] But as Boris Johnson has demonstrated in London, with passion and with power one can transform the post.
We have had elected mayors in North Tyneside for more than eight years, and our most effective one was Mr John Harrison, who was the Labour mayor for four years. He did much to progress the area, but, unfortunately, we now have a Conservative mayor. Regarding the proposal for 12 elected mayors,
one of the Local Government Ministers has said that they will be chosen from among council leaders, with a referendum to follow afterwards. Should they not be chosen in an election, as the coalition agreement states?
Mr Pickles: I have to say that Linda Arkley is doing a fantastic job as the Conservative mayor, and a very effective one, too. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have paid a little more attention to the earlier question, when I ruled out the possibility that we would be imposing mayors. This will be subject to a referendum. It was the Labour party that imposed forms of government on local government without consultation and without listening. This Government have learned the lesson; we will follow the will of the people.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): Does the Secretary of State agree that, in regard to the localism agenda, there might be a case for arguing that the imposition of a referendum on elected mayors is as bad as the imposition of elected mayors themselves?
Mr Pickles: My hon. Friend, whom I have known for the best part of 30 years, is sometimes a stranger to democracy. I know that democracy is an inconvenience, but I do not think it that it will do any harm to consult the people of Bradford.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): I am determined to make it easier for local community groups to thrive. There are three ways in which we can help. First, there is a determination across Government to remove unnecessary burdens. Lord Young of Graffham is reducing the burden of health and safety legislation, while Lord Hodgson is tasked with reducing burdens on voluntary groups and will report in 2011. Secondly, as I said earlier, I have established a team in my Department to help local communities directly to get rid of barriers that stand in their way. Thirdly, I look to local government to avoid being over-prescriptive when issuing contracts to voluntary organisations.
Nicola Blackwood: My constituency contains many dedicated volunteers, but many others are put off by the intrusive system of multiple Criminal Records Bureau checks. One deputy head, who had been checked for his school, was unable to accompany his own students in a cub activity unless he obtained another CRB check from the scouting organisation. While I share the House's commitment to child protection, as deputy chairman of the all-party parliamentary scout group I also feel deeply frustrated by bureaucratic barriers of that sort. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that we support volunteerism rather than stifle it?
Although scouting is more popular than ever before and more teenagers are joining the movement than ever before, the waiting list is at a record level because there
are not enough volunteers to catch up with it. CRB checks are an important aspect of that, and the Home Office is reviewing the vetting and barring arrangements. In response to a suggestion made by a member of the public through the "spending challenge" process, we will make it possible for relevant organisations to share CRB checks.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): The Department has been concerned with the spending review. It is essential for us to bring down the budget deficit, drive economic growth, and pull Britain together.
The Department has also had an opportunity to decentralise power and promote fairness in our society. We are committed to a £6.5 billion affordable housing and decent housing regime; we are tackling the pressure on social services by providing an additional £2 billion in support for adult social care; we are helping the vulnerable with the £6.5 billion Supporting People programme; we are giving councils unprecedented flexibility by ending ring-fencing; and we are folding £7 billion into formula grant.
Julian Sturdy: Can the Minister outline the powers invested in local authorities to restrict the spread of houses in multiple occupation in areas where large numbers of such houses are causing concern to local communities?
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps): My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are instances in which HMOs cause problems for local communities. Indeed, it happens in my own constituency.
On their last day in office, the last Government introduced a blanket authority requiring HMO planning permission to be obtained everywhere in the country before the use of a property could be changed. On 1 October, we altered the arrangement to ensure that it could be zoned as and where a local authority needed it to be.
T3.  Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): In the light of the 60% cuts in the social housing budget that were announced yesterday, will one of the Ministers tell me whether the private finance initiative scheme in Orchard Park and the stock transfer in Bransholme will go ahead?
T2.  Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Council tax payers in my constituency have been dismayed by golden goodbyes for council bosses since the move to one council for Wiltshire. Just four staff shared nearly £2 million in remuneration in their final 12 months in post. Will the Secretary of State bring into line the Local Government (Early Termination of Employment) (Discretionary Compensation) Regulations 2006, which have made that scandal possible?
Mr Pickles: This has been a more than unfortunate feature of local government for a long time. We have seen chief executives move from one authority and receive a very generous farewell, only to join another authority. It is completely unacceptable. If local authorities do not deal with the position themselves, the Government will be left with no alternative but to take the necessary action. However, I believe that allowing an entire council, rather than a tiny, cosy elite, to decide such matters on the floor of the chamber will make a difference.
T6.  Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): Last week, the Government announced that in London the responsibilities of the Homes and Communities Agency would be passed to the Mayor. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that this decision is not being used as a ruse to deprive London of much-needed investment in affordable housing? What extra funding will the Mayor of London get to enable him to fulfil these new responsibilities?
Grant Shapps: We think that, in line with localism, it is very important that money goes directly to the place where it is required. The way in which the Homes and Communities Agency operated in London was a great example of how not to do it, because we ended up with the chief executive of the national HCA, a London chief executive for the HCA and the elected Mayor having to work almost against each other. There is no point in that, because we can simplify things by having the money go direct. The amount of funding will now be resolved, with the spending review out of the way.
T4.  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The abolition of the Standards Board for England is greatly welcomed across the country, but it will have to be in the local government Bill. At the moment, there is a rush of new complaints, many of which are frivolous and malicious. Is there any way in which those can be stopped now, by stopping referrals to the Standards Board for England?
Mr Pickles: In fairness to the standards boards, they are trying to take away some of the more frivolous and silly complaints, the lowest level of which was the complaint that Ken Livingstone had been rude to a journalist-the very thought sends shivers down my spine, of course. Even if Ken had been a little emotional that night, the right thing is for the people to decide; it is for the electors to decide, not a quango. That entire investigation cost £200,000 and it was utterly pointless. I am doing my bit by taking substantial sums away from the standards boards.
T7.  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): Has the Minister assessed how the 28% cut in local authority funding over four years will affect women, who are more likely to use and work for local authority services?
Mr Pickles: We will of course be making a full assessment. I say to the hon. Lady that the correct figure is 26% and that if we had not taken this decision, we would be facing savage and uncontrolled cuts in local authorities, because of the Labour party's failure. We have a plan-the Labour party does not.
T5.  Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): As we all know, the previous Labour Government managed to build only 14,000 new social houses during their entire period. [Interruption.] Oh yes it is true.
Neil Carmichael: My question is: how will the measures that we announced yesterday help to ensure more supply and enable people to get on a waiting list that has some meaning and where there is some chance of their getting a house?
Mr Pickles: The reaction of those on the Labour Benches clearly demonstrates that the previous policy was indeed a pantomime. We are determined to break through the hypocrisy that exists on social housing. In order to halve the existing waiting list, we would have had to spend about £50 billion. The Labour party produced a scheme that did not work. Ours goes with the natural flow of the housing market, and I am pleased to see chief officers of housing associations welcoming it and welcoming the flexibility. We will be able to implement many of the plans that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) so gallantly pioneered, only to be stopped by the previous Prime Minister.
T9.  Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): According to Allister Hayman of the Local Government Chronicle, regional development agency network liabilities have reached £1.5 billion and could rise as high as £2.5 billion. The Government plan a freeze on RDA spending beyond March 2011, which includes match funding, so how will this funding gap on Department for Communities and Local Government programmes partnered by the eight RDAs be met? Will the Government's new local enterprise partnerships be adequately funded when they begin?
Mr Pickles: We are clearly examining the commitments made by RDAs. I express a high degree of disappointment that in the purdah period between the change of Government a number of contracts were entered into inappropriately. We will be doing our best to sort out that mess and see that the assets are returned to the new local enterprise partnerships. I must say that I am very disappointed at the irresponsible attitude that some RDAs displayed during that period.
T8.  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con): We have just heard about RDAs, and it is great news to me that we are moving towards local enterprise partnerships. People across Norfolk have come together-businesses, small businesses, the Federation of Small Businesses, the chamber of commerce, some big organisations, local authorities and the university-to put together a bid just for Norfolk. Does the Minister agree that this is a much better way to true localism, which enables us to see local economies grow, and will he look sympathetically at the Norfolk bid for a LEP?
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): I will certainly look sympathetically at it, although I cannot pre-empt the conclusions of the review. I think the process of inviting bids between business, local authorities, universities and the voluntary sector for LEPs has resulted, as Members will see shortly, in a fantastic set of proposals that will give energy and dynamism to the regeneration of some of the communities that need it most.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Last year, the Minister for Housing in the Labour Government allocated money to replace more than 100 council pre-fabs because the foundations were collapsing. Earlier this year, this Government decided to stop that money even though it had been allocated. All those pensioners and disabled people are waiting for those new homes. In this brave new world of £6.5 billion, can I get on the phone to Bolsover district council now and tell them that the Tarran bungalows are to be replaced?
Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that out of the £6.5 billion of money going to social housing, £2.1 billion is going to continue with the decent homes programme. I can also give him a further undertaking: we will ensure that, unlike my immediate predecessor, I do not raid that budget-as he did last July-to take some of the money and put it into a re-announced announcement elsewhere in the budget.
T10.  Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con): How will the Department impress on local authorities the need to commission as many of their services as possible from the voluntary sector, small business and community groups seriously to deliver more cost-effective, creative and innovative services at the front line?
Greg Clark: That is a very good question from my hon. Friend. It is important, as I said earlier, that we do not centralise in the town hall at a time when we are decentralising from the Government. In fact, the chief executive of the voluntary organisations' umbrella body said that he was highly encouraged by our proposals to entrench these rights for community groups to receive funding from local authorities.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): May I ask the Secretary of State, on the invitation of Haringey council, whether he would come to Tottenham and spend an evening in one of my estates? There is now real concern about homelessness in Haringey with the cut to housing benefit, the desire to take social housing rents to the same level as those in the private sector and the cut of 28% to local authority grants. Will he come to Tottenham and spend an evening with the community?
The question relates to the problem of homelessness, which is close to my heart. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is £12.25 million, much of which will go to London authorities, to help with transition. I know that he has 4,500 non-decent homes left within his arm's length management organisation
stock that the new £2.1 billion will assist. On behalf of the Secretary of State, I shall be happy personally to accept his invitation and come and spend an evening in the estates with him. I look forward to it.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Because it is both topical and urgent, I ask the Minister to refer back to question 5. Local authorities are not necessarily taking any notice of what the coalition Government Ministers are saying in their pronouncements, particularly in the case of officers at Colchester borough council. Will he therefore visit Myland parish council in Colchester to see the absurd proposals that are going forward there?
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he believes that house prices will rise or fall over the next six months? If they fall, would he see that as a good thing or a bad thing?
Grant Shapps: House prices will fluctuate. [Interruption.] It is obvious. We do not want to see house prices doubling in a period of just 10 years as happened under the last Labour Government, locking generations out of being able to get a foot on the housing ladder. This Government want to help people on to the housing ladder, not exclude them.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): Last Friday, local volunteer groups in conjunction with Tamworth borough council launched the Tamworth community action network, which enables local volunteers to use council office space to provide volunteer services and recruit more volunteers. Will Ministers commend this local initiative, and will they consider visiting when time allows?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): I think that is the third invitation to Ministers to visit Members' constituencies in this set of topical questions. The hon. Gentleman has referred to an excellent project. It is an exemplar that we are keen to see replicated elsewhere, and I look forward to visiting it.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab): Yesterday we heard about the supposedly extra money that councils will get to meet the care needs of the elderly and disabled. How much is that sum of money compared with the total overall cuts faced by local government? I am concerned that what is being given with one hand is being taken away with the other.
That is an outrageous suggestion. For years upon years I stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box demanding that the money be released from the
health authority to local authorities to deal with this. We have done that; the hon. Lady should be saying thank you.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con): Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the plan set out by Wirral council under its leader Jeff Green to tackle the debt left in the council by the previous, Labour, administration, first through introducing transparency by publishing all expenditure over £500 and, secondly, through a wide consultation with all the Wirral public?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): I recently visited Wirral and met Councillor Green, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the council is using a number of innovative measures not only in the transparency agenda, but in the imaginative use of community facilities such as fire stations working conjointly with youth groups in the big society.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Will the Liberal Minister now answer the question that has already been asked twice during this Question Time? What is his assessment of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report about extensive job losses in the private sector?
My assessment is that, like a lot of reporting of what the coalition agreement and the comprehensive spending review are about, it is purely
speculative. What we have actually got is a programme for growth in the private sector and in small businesses, and we are putting the British economy back on its feet.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Is the Secretary of State aware that hard-pressed taxpayers in Harlow and elsewhere are paying the East of England Development Agency chief executive a higher salary than the Prime Minister? When the Secretary of State gets rid of this unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy, will he ensure that the new local enterprise partnerships no longer waste taxpayers' money in this way?
No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady and I will tell her this. The last Government used to claim there were just 440 people sleeping on our streets. That is not true. When we came into office we conducted a proper count, and the right figure is 1,247. Hiding the problem is not solving it; this Government are protecting the most vulnerable in society, and that includes the homeless.
Colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the February recess on Thursday 17 February 2011 and return on Monday 28 February 2011. The House will rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 5 April 2011 and return on Tuesday 26 April 2011. The House will rise for the Whitsun recess on Tuesday 24 May 2011 and return on Tuesday 7 June 2011. The House will rise for the summer recess on Tuesday 19 July 2011 and return on Monday 5 September 2011. The House will rise for the conference recess on Thursday 15 September 2011 and return on Monday 10 October 2011. The House will rise for the Christmas recess on Tuesday 20 December 2011 and return on Tuesday 10 January 2012.
Last week I raised with the Leader of the House the fact that major Government announcements were appearing in newspapers before they were made to the House. This week-one of profound importance for the country-we find that exactly the same thing has happened again. Details of Tuesday's strategic defence and security review were in the newspapers over several days leading up to it. In other words, journalists got lots of advance information, whereas the Leader of the Opposition got the Prime Minister's statement only 15 minutes before it was made, and in recent days much of the comprehensive spending review has been leaked before the Chancellor got around to telling us about it yesterday.
It seems pretty clear now that Ministers believe that those who report on Parliament are much more important than those who are actually Members of Parliament. It has got so bad that the Conservative former parliamentary candidate and blogger Iain Dale has urged you, Mr Speaker, to take the Government to the cleaners over what has been going on. I wonder, therefore, whether the Leader of the House has plans to clean up this mess. He did not explain last week, but perhaps he can do so now.
On the rights of Members, and following our exchanges last week about the amount of time we will have to debate the CSR, will the Leader of the House now recognise that one day for debate is simply not enough, and that denying the House the opportunity to vote on what is a reckless gamble is simply not good enough either? Will he find more time so that we can debate why Ministers, who have just got jobs, were cheering at the end of yesterday's statement when other people are about to lose their jobs? Will he also find time to debate the inability of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on television yesterday to explain why the poorest 10% in society will be forced to pay more to reduce the deficit than almost anybody else, when his boss claims that the spending review is anchored in fairness? If the Chief Secretary cannot manage to find the words, perhaps he could walk into the Chamber carrying his briefing folder so that we can take a photograph of it and put a copy in the Library.
Will the Leader of the House find more time so that we can debate why families with children will have to pay more than twice the amount that the banks, which caused the problem, are being asked to contribute? And how exactly will making nearly 500,000 people in the public sector lose their jobs help the economy to recover and create new jobs?
All of this will require time, especially given that we know from last summer's emergency budget that the truth has a habit of seeping out once the fine print starts to be examined. So can the Leader of the House now give the House the assurance it is looking for from him that Members will have the chance to debate the CSR properly, and to vote on it?
Finally, this week we have been debating the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on the Floor of the House. On Monday about 100 pages of amendments were tabled. We are now told that there will be a number of statutory instruments to allow for a combination of polls, with even further amendments to follow. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) told the House:
"I am very keen that on matters to do with elections this House should get to pronounce before the Bill goes to the other place...we will seek to achieve that."-[ Official Report, 18 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 653.]
As far as I can see, the only way to do this is to reschedule either the fifth day of the Committee stage or the remaining stages that the Leader of the House has outlined this morning. Otherwise the House, which has already been unable to discuss very important parts of the Bill because of the speed at which it is being rammed through, will not be able to consider the amendments before they go to the other place, and the Minister's pledge will not have been met. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on this matter?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I have already announced the dates of the Christmas recess, so I am not quite sure which further dates in this Session he was asking about.
May I return to the right hon. Gentleman's question about a second day for debate on the CSR? The last time this House heard a comprehensive spending review was in 2007, under the Government of whom he was a member. All we had then was a statement, and-at a time when the Government were in total control of the parliamentary timetable-there was no debate whatever. Indeed, so badly did the previous Government behave that the Liaison Committee said about their performance:
"It is absurd that the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review was discussed for only an hour and a half in the Chamber, and makes a mockery of the House's right to scrutinise government expenditure."
In the meantime we have had the Wright Committee report, which recommended transferring to the Backbench Business Committee responsibility for fixing debates, and made it absolutely clear that debates on spending reviews were a matter for the House, not for the Government. Notwithstanding that, the Government have found a day out of their own time to debate the CSR, and that is what we will do next Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman may want to restore his party's reputation on the matter, and when the Opposition are given an Opposition day, which I hope to announce quite soon, it will be perfectly open to them to use that day for a second day of debate on the CSR.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about the leaks. I was slightly surprised to hear Opposition Members having the chutzpah to complain about leaks and pre-briefing, when for 13 years this House was deliberately and systematically sidelined by professional spinners and manipulators in No. 10. I listened to the Chancellor's statement, and the reason why my colleagues waved their Order Papers was that it was an outstanding parliamentary performance. When the shadow Chancellor sat down, he did not get the same response from his Back Benchers.
On the question of leaks, I listened to the CSR statement, and the vast majority of the CSR was announced first to the House, including the housing benefit reforms, the child benefit changes and the replacement of the education maintenance allowance. But, as with any major announcement, there is inevitably speculation in the press and in the media, and hon. Members should not believe everything that they read in the press. For example, I read that the cold weather payments were going to be abolished, and they were not.
Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and there is some pressure on time, so I appeal, as always, for single, short supplementary questions and, of course, to the Leader of the House to exercise his characteristic pithiness in reply.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con):
On the eve of European health and safety week, is the Leader of the House aware of the excessive bureaucracy that Essex county council highways department has imposed upon the
village of Coggeshall in my constituency just to put up its village Christmas tree and lights? Can he please reassure my constituents that he will work across Government to ensure that the over-zealous bureaucrats at the highways department do not kill Christmas in Coggeshall?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. But first, I should have answered the question that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked about the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I must say that if the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) did not speak for quite so long-he spoke twice for 50 minutes-we would have more time to reach other parts of the Bill. We have allowed five days for Committee, which is a generous allocation, but it is up to Members to respond intelligently to the extra time that we have allocated.
On the specific issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I am aware of the discussions that took place, and the Minister said that the Government would seek to ensure that amendments to the Bill following the territorial elections statutory instruments would be made in this House. On 18 October we tabled an amendment to the Bill providing for a combination of the referendum with other elections in order to allow the issue to be debated in Committee, and we expect the territorial orders to be laid before Report. We will then make any necessary further amendments to the combination provisions.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) that we are in favour of Christmas; indeed, we are in favour of Christmas in Coggeshall. My noble Friend Lord Young-no relation-has published his report, "Common Sense, Common Safety", and we are committed to that. We need some proportionality in all such matters, and Lord Young has recommended that officials who ban events on the grounds of health and safety should put their reasons in writing, and that citizens should have a right to challenge such decisions. If my hon. Friend gives me further details of the incident to which she has referred, I shall take it up with the appropriate Department.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab): My right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House referred to the many amendments tabled to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, of which some relate to Scotland. Will the Leader of the House say whether consultations with the Scottish Government have taken place? Will he also let the House know whether a Sewel motion relating to the legislation is needed? It would need to be considered by the Scottish Parliament before issues are discussed in this House.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is taking an active part in proceedings on the Bill, has noted the hon. Gentleman's point. To answer his first question-yes, there were consultations and discussions with the Scottish Parliament in relation to those provisions of the Bill.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
The Government made clear yesterday their desire to see the private sector grow, increase employment and rebuild the economy. My constituency has the world
centre of excellence for subsea engineering that supports the global oil and gas industry-an industry that needs to meet contracts at short notice anywhere in the world. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement to reassure investors in that industry that they will be able to continue to locate in this country, and still be able to move key skilled people in and out of this country at short notice?
Sir George Young: I understand the importance of that industry to those who work in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will raise with my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration the question of the cap on non-EU work permits, if that is the specific issue that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) is raising. There will be a further opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House at Home Office questions on 18 November.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): May I return to the important constitutional matters in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that there has not been time to debate on the Floor of the House? One of them relates to Wales. The main clauses relating to Wales were debated yesterday, but we did not get to the critical clause-clause 11, which relates specifically to the National Assembly-although the Secretary of State for Wales stated in a letter to all Welsh Members that that clause would be debated. Indeed, that was the very reason why she denied our request for a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House to make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Wales on the pressing need to reinstate the Welsh Grand Committee, so that we can debate that critical matter for the people of Wales?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot accede to that request. When I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate yesterday, Wales was being discussed most of the time, so the notion that it has not been possible to discuss matters relating to Wales simply does not stand up. There will be opportunities on Report to debate the parts of the Bill that were not reached in Committee-but I have to say that if hon. Members want to reach the necessary clauses they should exert some self-discipline, and not speak interminably on certain matters so that key parts of the Bill are not reached.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): Mrs Jan Berry, the independent Reducing Bureaucracy in Policing Advocate, has recently reported that it takes up to 10 police officers to investigate a single burglary. Constituents of mine in Bury St Edmunds, and Stowmarket in particular, are fed up with antisocial behaviour and want to see more police on the streets, not behind their desks. Given that, will my right hon. Friend allow an urgent, and in my opinion long overdue, debate on slashing police red tape?
Sir George Young:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and agree entirely with what he says. Jan Berry has indeed produced a report, and we are grateful to her for her work on identifying some of the root causes of the sort of red tape that stops officers getting out on the
streets, where people want to see them. Police officers should be crime fighters, not form writers, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is determined to reduce bureaucracy and improve efficiency, so that resources are not wasted and can reach the front line.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): The Leader of the House announced earlier that the subject for debate in Westminster Hall selected by the Backbench Business Committee is the effect of the CSR on the Department for Work and Pensions. May I take this opportunity to remind right hon. and hon. Members that the next open public session for representations to the Backbench Business Committee is next Monday at 5 pm in Committee Room 15, when we will welcome bids for debates on the CSR and its impact on different Departments? May I also invite the Leader of the House to attend the sitting and witness that innovation for himself?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will be attending her salon next Monday to see how this important innovation in how the House works operates in practice. She makes a serious point: the Chamber is not the only forum in which the Government can be held to account. There is also Westminster Hall, and there are the Select Committees. We need to put the debate on the CSR in that broader context, looking at all the opportunities to hold the Government to account.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): On 1 October the Government reversed the planned changes to legislation on houses in multiple occupation without giving Members a chance to debate the changes. As 92% of respondents to last year's consultation said that there should be change, will the Leader of the House ensure that Members on both sides of the House have the chance to debate this important matter?
Sir George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. My recollection, as a former Housing Minister, is that with HMOs over a certain size there is an obligation for the local authority to inspect and license them. With HMOs below that size, the local authority has all the powers it needs to intervene on a discretionary basis if it thinks that is right. However, I shall raise this issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): The Leader of the House will know of the interest in and passionate support for Sure Start children's centres that I and many other hon. Members have. Many of us feel betrayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks yesterday that there will be savage cuts to those children's centres in this country. What does the Leader of the House have to say about that issue, and when can we debate it?
Sir George Young: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the CSR statement that there would be a steady cash settlement for the Sure Start programme, and that there would not be any cash reductions.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con):
Mr Speaker, you were kind enough to grant me a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on the regulation of independent financial advisers, which was extremely
well attended by colleagues and generated an enormous amount of interest nationally. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the important topic of the regulation of the Financial Services Authority, and its performance against statutory objectives?
Sir George Young: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her well-attended debate yesterday. The Government will be introducing legislation to reform the FSA, as she knows, and that will provide the House with an opportunity to debate the issues she has touched on.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): In the first five years of the Afghan war, only two British soldiers died in conflict. As a consequence of the incursion into Helmand province that figure is now 341. When can we debate the report of the Public Administration Committee that shows the appallingly trivial reasons why that decision was taken, which proves that the incursion into Helmand was a blunder on the scale of the charge of the Light Brigade, but with three times as many British deaths?
Sir George Young: Obviously, I regret any loss of life in Afghanistan. I believe that the House debated this issue, on a motion tabled by the Backbench Business Committee, in September. The new Government will respond formally in due course to the Select Committee report, which welcomed their aspirations to think more strategically through the National Security Council.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): The killer of my constituent's sister is due to be released at weekends, despite having been sentenced barely 12 months ago to eight years for manslaughter. Can we have a debate to ensure that the Government's drive for greater honesty in sentencing covers the decisions of judges, the Parole Board and prison governors, and also encompasses offences of homicide, because the families of victims often feel let down, shut out and deceived by the criminal justice system?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and my sympathies go first and foremost to the victim's family. As in all criminal cases, it is for the court to decide what sentence is appropriate-but the sentencing assessment currently being conducted by the Lord Chancellor is now considering the sentencing framework as a whole. In response to my hon. Friend's specific point, we intend to publish proposals for the reform of sentencing and criminal justice in the autumn, and I am sure that there will be an opportunity thereafter to debate them.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): I am holding in my hand the most recent paper from the Library about the hours of the House. It claims that the House adjourns at 10 pm on Monday and Tuesday, at 7 pm on Wednesday and at 6 pm on Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that last night we did not move to the Adjournment debate until 3 minutes past 10. What is he going to do to make the hours of the House more predictable and family-friendly?
Sir George Young:
One has to put the hon. Lady's request in the context of the earlier request for more time to debate the constitutional measure currently
going through the House. The events of this week and last week are unusual, in that we are debating a constitutional Bill on the Floor of the House and we have allowed injury time for statements that we knew were going to take place. That will not be the normal pattern of sittings, and I hope that normal service will be resumed quite soon.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Following yesterday's vote in the European Parliament to increase the costs of maternity leave, can we find time for a debate on the impact of the additional burdens being imposed on British businesses by the European Union?
Sir George Young: I am disappointed by the outcome of yesterday's vote in the European Parliament, but that is not the end of the process. The UK will work hard in Council to oppose the imposition of a requirement for fully paid maternity leave, and we expect other member states to join us. [ Interruption. ] If Opposition Members look at the details of the directive, they will see that it is entirely regressive, as the greatest benefits would be obtained by those earning the most.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab): Can we have a debate on the so-called fairness of the CSR? May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 862, which effectively calls on the top 10%-the wealthiest people in the country-to make a significant financial contribution to the country's deficit?
[That this House agrees with Professor Greg Philo, research director of Glasgow University Media Group, that the UK's current financial deficit could be significantly reduced if the richest 10 per cent. of Britain's citizens paid a one off tax of just 20 per cent. of their personal wealth, which would not have any immediate impact on their quality of life; notes that 74 per cent. of the British public polled recently agree with this proposal; further notes that if this were to happen there would be no need for drastic cuts to public services and armed forces, and there would be less need for major job losses; and therefore calls on the Government to explore how this objective could be achieved, either on a voluntary basis or by legislation if necessary.]
Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have announced when the CSR will be debated, and those points can be made then. If he looks at the tables in the back of the paper published yesterday-tables B4, B5 and B6-he will see that the top 10% are bearing a disproportionate part of the burden, and rightly so.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): As has been highlighted by both the Burton Mail and the Federation of Small Businesses, small businesses in Burton and across the country are suffering as a result of larger firms unilaterally extending payment terms from 30 days to 60 days-or to 90 days in some cases. Given that those firms are struggling as a result of difficulties in accessing finance from the banks, can we have an urgent debate to see what we can do about that double whammy, and to support small businesses across the country?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the Government are taking steps to help small businesses by, for example, requiring that a certain percentage of contracts be put out to be bid for by small and medium-sized businesses. On whether there should be a statutory requirement to settle a bill within a finite number of days, the House has discussed this issue and has so far resisted legislating on it. However, I shall certainly draw his concerns to the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether this is an issue that we might reconsider.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): Yesterday the coalition Government announced huge projected increases in unemployment. How high will unemployment have to rise before the Government change their economic strategy? Can we have a statement please?
Sir George Young: I am not aware of any forecast increases in unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures that the Office for Budget Responsibility published after we made clear our intention to tackle the deficit and take £83 billion out, he will see that for every year in the coming four years, it predicted a fall in unemployment and a rise in employment. In the second quarter of this year about 300,000 jobs were created, so we need to put all that in a slightly different context.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): On Second Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill there was not time for every hon. Member who wished to contribute to speak-and that includes me. During last night's Committee deliberations the guillotine fell before we got to the debate on the contrast between the Government's benchmarking of constituencies except for the Western Isles-or Na h-Eileanan an Iar-and the situation for my constituency. The Western Isles constituency has only three islands, whereas mine has 13, which can be reached only by sea or air. The Western Isles has an electorate of 22,000, whereas Argyll and Bute has 67,000 and has double the land area of the Western Isles. Can we have a debate on that important issue on Report?
Sir George Young: I am sorry that because of the verbosity of certain Members we did not reach as many stages of the Bill as we would have liked. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those issues are important, and I hope that, within the constraints that he will understand, it will be possible to debate them on Report.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): Bearing in mind that the Foreign Secretary hosted a visit by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister this week, may we have an early debate on the situation in Sri Lanka so that Members can ask whether robust statements were made about that island regarding the continuing detention of people, the human rights position, the freedom of the media, and the imprisonment of people who stood in elections?
Sir George Young:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I will pass his comments on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. In addition,
on 16 November he will have an opportunity to put those points to Foreign Office Ministers when they are at the Dispatch Box.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future of the politically correct Equality and Human Rights Commission? In a recent parliamentary answer to me, it emerged that in the past four years the commission has had 25 complaints from its own staff about sex discrimination, race discrimination or disability discrimination. Is it not ludicrous that it is given so much public money to stamp out discrimination across the workplace when it has such a bad record itself, and is it not time that this ridiculous body was abolished?
Sir George Young: As always, I welcome my hon. Friend's robust comments. We will shortly introduce a public bodies Bill following the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made last Thursday. If my hon. Friend catches Mr Speaker's eye during the Second Reading of that Bill, he may find an opportunity to develop at greater length the points that he has made.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): The Leader of the House made the very welcome statement that the statutory instruments will be laid before the Report stage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, but he left two things out. First, can he confirm that he will be using the affirmative procedure for those statutory instruments? Secondly, given that they are statutory instruments consequential to a constitutional Bill about elections, will he be taking them here on the Floor of the House?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Earlier this year, the Chancellor made a welcome announcement about proposals to look into growth hubs. Staffordshire university in my constituency, and Keele university in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), are both looking at the possibility of forming such a growth hub. These are extremely important in enabling new, high-growth-potential businesses to get going, so may we have debate on the subject?
Sir George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in this, and I agree that it is important that we have a debate. He could apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate, or he could come along with me to the Backbench Business Committee on Monday and make a bid for a debate in Back-Bench time.
May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to column 638W of Tuesday's Hansard, where the Home Office confirmed that almost 5,000 children hold shotgun licences, including 26 10-year-olds, 72 11-year-olds and 134 12-year-olds? Will he ask the Home Secretary to
contact the Association of the Chief Police Officers to find out why there are so many licences and whether the rules should be checked again, and then come to the House to make a statement?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and commend his energy in finding these important pieces of information. The Government are committed to a debate on our gun laws following the tragic shootings in Cumbria in July. That debate will be an opportunity to consider all aspects of gun legislation, including the age limits that he touched on.
[That this House believes that the British Standards Institution (BSI) Kitemark for Garage Services is a good step forward in supplying formal recognition of the good workmanship of some garages and their value for money; notes research which shows that 58 per cent. of people who have had a car serviced in a garage before are not totally confident that the work they have paid for has been carried out; further notes that the BSI is an independent body that owns and operates the Kitemark scheme, and has done much to improve consumer confidence in the quality of a good or service; and therefore calls on the Government to support the BSI Kitemark for Garage Services as a demonstration of compliance to a known national standard.]
Six out of 10 people who have their car serviced in a garage are not confident that the work has been carried out properly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that motorists should be assured of getting the proper service they deserve?
Sir George Young: Of course motorists are entitled to a high-quality service. I should like to raise with the Secretary of State for Transport the proposition that my hon. Friend has put forward and get a response. He may have an opportunity to develop his argument at greater length in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): My question is about the continuing disastrous handling of the Building Schools for the Future programme and the savage cuts to it. When I asked the Secretary of State for Education a very simple question-how much money was allocated to two schools in my constituency, The Grange and Wade Deacon, which had been given the go-ahead and which the Government had made great play about-I got a holding answer suggesting that he does not have a clue about what money is available for those schools. Is that not a disgraceful situation? Can the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made to this House by the Secretary of State?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. If there has been any discourtesy, I apologise for that. I will contact the appropriate Department and see whether we can expedite an answer to his specific question about the costs in those two schools.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con):
Job creation in British small businesses is vital to the economic recovery. As well as a debate on European Union
employment legislation, can we have a debate on the coalition's proposals for further employment legislation in the coming months?
Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important issue. It may be possible for him to raise those important issues in the debate on the CSR that I have announced and get a response from my hon. Friends.
"The government is denying responsibility for an entire generation's ability to access affordable housing".
Given the near-market rents for new social tenants, the lack of security, the 16% cut in capital funding and the cuts in housing benefit, when can we have a full debate on the Floor of the House on housing for a future generation, for which this Government are the first to abdicate responsibility?
Sir George Young: We have just had Communities and Local Government questions, when the Housing Minister said that during the 13 years of Labour Government there was a net gain of 14,000 affordable homes over 13 years. If one sets that against the 150,000 affordable homes which, following the CSR, we hope to provide over the next five years, that puts a slightly different gloss on the hon. Gentleman's point.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): The Leader of the House has announced a full day's debate on the comprehensive spending review. I am not sure whether he will be in a position to do this, but can he clarify who will speak on behalf of the Government, as that might be helpful for Members preparing for the debate? Who else, in an ideal world, would he like to see speaking in that debate?
Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will open the debate and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will respond. Who else takes part is a matter for Mr Speaker. However, I think it would be helpful if the former Prime Minister were able to come along and explain what steps he would have taken to address the deficit that he has left us with.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): On the constituencies and boundaries Bill-the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill-the Leader of the House mentioned the importance of a variety of means of scrutiny. First, will he ensure that the recommendations of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which are to be published next week, will be taken seriously by him in his deliberations and by the Government? Secondly, will he confirm that the SIs will be dealt with before Report? Finally, will he ensure that the Welsh Assembly is properly consulted?
Sir George Young: I will choose to answer one of them. The Welsh Affairs Committee report will be available to the Government before the Report stage, and it will therefore be possible to take it on board before we reach the final stages of the Bill.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): When the House introduced experimental sitting hours in 2003-05, whereby we sat from 11.30 am to 7 pm on a Wednesday-as we do now-and also on a Tuesday, it was never intended that the House should sit in the morning and then through the evening until 10 o'clock, as we did yesterday. Will the Leader of the House consider reintroducing Tuesday morning sittings? Is he aware that we have sat later hours in this Parliament than we did on any night in the 2005 Parliament?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises the broad issue of the parliamentary calendar and whether we should change Tuesday hours back to ending at 7 o'clock instead of 10 o'clock. The Procedure Committee will examine the sitting hours and the whole parliamentary calendar, and following its inquiry I understand that it will put a range of options before the House. I agree that it is right that the House revisit the issue, because there has been a substantial change in membership since we last visited it. There will be an opportunity to look more radically at how we operate.
On my hon. Friend's specific question, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the last two weeks have been unusual, partly because this Government want to allow adequate time to scrutinise Bills, particularly important constitutional measures. However, we do not envisage the regime that we have had for the past two weeks being the normal pattern.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): One of my constituents is serving a tariff of five years, which will come to an end in December. He has been told that he will not be released unless he undertakes a number of courses. He has undertaken 25 so far. May we have an urgent debate about why those who have paid their debt to society are further punished due to a lack of funds?
Sir George Young: I understand the hon. Lady's concern on behalf of her constituent. If she would be good enough to give me the details, I will raise them with the Lord Chancellor and see whether we can get a direct response.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): This new Government have shown themselves willing to put themselves up for scrutiny, especially from Members on their own side of the House-the Opposition seem to have given up. May we have a statement from him on whether we could go slightly further and look into having confirmation hearings for new Cabinet Ministers?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on Tuesday proposing the abolition of the Whips Office. I am not sure that it was an intelligent career move. The notion of confirmatory hearings for Cabinet Ministers is a novel constitutional innovation, because responsibility currently rests with the Prime Minister. Whether he would want to share it with my hon. Friend and others is a matter for him, so on this particular issue my hon. Friend will just have to hold his breath.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab):
The Leader of the House must understand that the comprehensive spending review is unprecedented. It will make 500,000 public sector
workers unemployed, cut investment in housing by half and make families pay more towards cutting the deficit than the bankers who created the problem in the first place and who still pay themselves excessive bonuses. We need extra time to scrutinise all that, and Opposition Back Benchers need to be able to hold the Government to account for what they are doing right across the public sector as a result of the comprehensive spending review. Comparing the situation with what the previous Government did will not wash. We need more time to discuss the CSR, in Government time.
I simply do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about who will pay for the CSR. For the first time, we have produced and published distributional analyses of the impact of the spending review. They show clearly that those with the highest incomes will shoulder the greatest burden, and rightly so. It is not the case that families with children will pay more than twice the amount that banks are being asked to contribute. The child tax credit provision introduced yesterday will protect the least well-off families. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, but he will have an opportunity to debate the matter in the time that we have made available to debate the CSR, which strictly speaking we need not have. My right hon. and hon. Friends will rebut all his propositions.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): The Leader of the House will know that in 2007 Hull was one of the areas that were very badly flooded. Ever since, it has been very difficult for my constituents to get reasonably priced insurance, or indeed insurance at all. In the light of the cuts that were made yesterday to the available flooding protection money, may we have a debate in Government time to discuss the direct impact on my constituents, who will now have sky-high insurance premiums, or whether insurance will be withdrawn from the city of Hull altogether?
Sir George Young: I understand the problem of those who find it difficult to get insurance because of either past floods or the prospect of floods. There will be an opportunity on 4 November to raise the issue with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, but in the meantime I will write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to share the hon. Lady's concerns and see whether we can take any measures in consultation with the Association of British Insurers and others to ensure that householders get the insurance they need at an affordable price.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): International research has been cited in The Observer showing that black people are 26 times more likely to be stopped and searched in England and Wales. The researchers said that that was the most glaring example of racial profiling that they had seen. That figure is shocking, and I say to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who appears no longer to be in his place, that it is precisely why we should retain the Equality and Human Rights Commission. May we have an urgent debate on the matter, to discern whether the police in England and Wales are using their powers of stop and search appropriately?
Sir George Young: I think those powers were extended to the police by the previous Administration. We are not abolishing the EHRC, and we are against any racial profiling when it comes to stop and search. I will raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask her to respond.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not here for the Leader of the House's business statement, but I gather that the issue was raised of the statutory instruments that will have to be laid in relation to combining polls in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. They have not yet been laid, but after they are, amendments will have to be made to the Parliament Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which will complete its Committee stage on Monday.
The Leader of the House has not yet said whether those statutory instruments will be laid and considered before Report. Otherwise, we would not be able to debate all the processes for elections in this House, and they would have to be debated in the other House. Is there any way in which we can ensure that we have clarity? As the junior Minister said in the debate the other day, it would be wholly inappropriate if matters affecting elections were decided not in this House but in the other, unelected Chamber.
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is seeking light to be shed on the matter. It is possible that the Leader of the House might wish to assist, but he is under no obligation to do so. It appears that he does not wish to do so at this stage. However, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is nothing if not an assiduous and conscientious parliamentarian, and he has got his point across with some force. Although the Leader of the House has not responded to it, I think I can confidently say that he has heard it.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to column 990 of this morning's Hansard. You may recall that yesterday, the Chancellor made great play of his support for the Mersey Gateway bridge, which would be in my constituency. I welcome that, but I asked him a very simple question about what funding the Government had allocated. He said that he did not know, but that he would come back to me "this afternoon". He later said that he would do so "later today". As of a few minutes ago, I have heard nothing from the Chancellor's office even though my office has been in touch with his. May I ask for your advice? Is that not a discourtesy not just to me but to the House? Opposition Members are concerned about the smoke and mirrors of the Government announcing schemes and cutting funding at the same time. There is a very simple way for the Government to deal with that-they should tell us what funding there is.
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I dare say he will share with his local media. I entirely understand his frustration and disappointment, but there are other ways in which he can pursue the matter. He may choose, of course, to provide the extract of his point of order and my response to it to the Treasury, to hasten the very reply that he so eagerly seeks. I do not think I can offer him any further encouragement than that, but he has been in this place for quite a long time, and I have a feeling that questions will be forthcoming if the reply that he wants is not.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you clarify for me, as a new Member, whether a Member who seeks to ask a parliamentary question and has registered a shareholding in the industry to which they are referring should, when they stand, make that share interest clear to the House?
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer to his question is that it is up to the Member to decide whether to do so in the way that he favours. Members certainly have a responsibility to declare their interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Some Members, on speaking in a debate to which they might think those interests are relevant, do choose to announce them, usually at the start of a speech, but as far as I am aware there is no absolute obligation to do so. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will probably wish to pursue the matter with his usual intensity.
Philip Davies, supported by Mr David Davis, Mr Peter Lilley, Mr John Whittingdale, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall and Mr Philip Hollobone, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of affirmative and positive action in recruitment and appointment processes; to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002; and for connected purposes.
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to make provision to require all institutions of further and higher education in receipt of public funds to allocate places on merit; and for connected purposes.
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to reduce the duties on employers to report matters under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995.
Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to prevent conditional fee agreement success fees and after the event insurance premiums being recoverable from the losing party in
civil litigation; to facilitate damages-based agreements for contingency fees in respect of successful litigants; and for connected purposes.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|