21/03/2016 Business Questions

future business, please? The business for next week, on Monday

the 21st of March, we have the continuation of the budget of eight.

On Tuesday we have the conclusion of the budget they'd. On Wednesday

proceedings on the high-speed rail London to West Midlands bill,

followed by consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion of

the European communities amendments act, followed by a motion related to

short money. On Thursday there will be a debate relating to court

closures, followed by a debate on matters to be decided before the

forthcoming Easter recess adjournment, and I might also say

that next Thursday we will be told... We look forward to that. The

business for the week commencing the 11th of April, when we return from

the Easter recess, Monday the 11th of April will be the second reading

of the Finance Bill. Tuesday the 12th will be a debate on reform and

support arrangements for people with contaminated blood, a subject

determined by the backbench business committee, and the chairman of ways

and Means is expected to name a proposed Private business for

consideration. Wednesday will be an opposition day, and Thursday will be

a further day nominated by the backbench business committee. Friday

the 15th of April we are not sitting. The business in Westminster

Hall for the 24th of March will be a general debate on the NHS in London.

He means that I'm not going to be here next week, so my eminently

capable deputy will be taking this up on our behalf. What a dreadful

two fingers budget. Two fingers up to the most vulnerable in the land,

those who cannot dress clean themselves, and two fingers crossed

behind our back in the hope that the black hole will come right by the

end of the Parliament. What a turnaround. Only weeks ago the

Chancellor told us that the future was sunny. Now he says that storm

clouds are on this horizon. That is a routine that Dame Edna haired wage

would be proud of. Every single target missed. He's no William Tell

either! Growth figures, wrong, product over the, wrong. The deficit

was meant to be abolished by 2015, and now he hopes beyond hope to have

a surplus by 2020. Does anyone really believe this? Isn't this

another pledge not worth development is not printed on? More leaks than

Wales, more spin than a whirling dervish in a washing machine. He

boasted yesterday about extra money for school sports, when he cut it in

the first place. That is like a burglar going to the police and

begging for a reward for turning himself in. Frankly, burglars can't

be choosers! Can the leader explained for us the commitment to

turn every school into an academy? There are 15,632 schools in England,

which are not yet academies. The cost for the conversion is ?44,837,

which comes to ?700 million. But the Chancellor wrongly allocated ?140

million to academy changing. Where is the shortfall of ?560 million

coming from? I have to say that there were some things to rejoice

about. I am glad that the Severn Bridge tolls will be cut in half,

thanks to the campaign by my honourable friend for Newport East.

Last week, I'm sure you will I announced that the obesity strategy

will be out soon, and now we have it, or at least part of it, the

sugar tax. I am delighted that finally the Chancellor has realised

the dangers of Cork. LAUGHTER -- Coke.

It is just a shame that he could not have said call -- cola instead.

Regarding independence payments, how can he tell us how they will be

brought in? Surely they should be in primary legislation. Surely the

changes should be brought in in primary legislation so there can be

proper scrutiny in both houses. Give another recent cuts to disability

benefits, will the government produced an impact assessment? There

is something deeply distasteful about a cut per person to the

200,000 most vulnerable people in our country, while the richest get a

?200 tax hand-out. I am not surprised that Graham Ellis, a

disability campaigner, has resigned from the Tory party. We will fight

these changes, but I warned the leader before not to try to pull a

fast one on working tax credits by using secondary legislation that

cannot be amended, and I do it again now. Yesterday saw the government

defeated three times in the House of Lords. By big majorities as well.

Nearly two to one in every case. There is more to come. Isn't it time

the government gave up on this didn't it than piece of legislation?

I have told to become. -- be more calm. We have the debate for short

money next week. Our usual discussions have been productive,

and I thank the leader for the part he has played. I am hopeful that

these will be published soon, this afternoon, or on Monday? Many

members have had real difficulties recently, with banks which have in

dealing with money laundering in a disproportionately. We all want to

tackle money-laundering, but it must be crazy that people are being

denied bank accounts simply because they are connected to a politically

exposed person. Can the government ensure there will be a debate on

this in government times we can get the balance right and tell the banks

where to go. Holy Week starts on Sunday, so I wish all members and

families a happy Easter. Next week Jewish people remember the attempt

of Jews to be killed in Persia. That was not the last annihilation of

them. 74 years ago today the first Polish Jews were gassed in an

extermination camp. Anti-Semitism is still alive today, and we must do

everything in our power to stop religious intolerance and racial

hatred affecting our political parties. That means calling out

anti-Semitism wherever we find it, even if it is inconvenient to

ourselves, and expelling those who continue these file arguments from

our political parties. I hope the leader would also agree that all

religious prejudice is equally despicable, and would frankly this

on the Tory campaign against Labour's candidate for Mayor of

London, which is the most desperate, divisive and racially charged

campaign London has ever seen. They should the ashamed. Can I also echo

the words that the Shadow leader has said about wishing happy Easter

period to all of those who work in this House. Can I start by

addressing the issue of member security. There were a number of

incidents following a recent vote. This will always be completely

unacceptable. I hope the police will deal with them strongly. Can I

remind members that the new security packages available to them and their

staff, if any member experiences teething problems with this new

package, with the police tell myself or the chairman of ways and Means,

and we will address these issues. We have heard a lot about the budget.

You can tell when the opposition are maddest. Normally it is easy to

catch the eye of the Shadow leader, he is always chatting across the

chamber. But yesterday I could not catch his eye for the moment because

he knew just how bad it was. Next week, we will see a continuation of

the budget debate. I could not make head nor tail of what the Leader of

the Opposition was saying he would do yesterday, but at least this week

we had another insight into Labour's economic policy. It turns out that

the Shadow Chancellor draws his inspiration from Marks, Trotsky and

-- to. Labour's policies would crush the middle classes and working class

people. This morning the Shadow Chancellor could not even said he

supported capitalism. That is where they have got to as a party. He

raised a question about the changes to independence payments. We will

publish details in due course. All members are produced with an impact

assessment. He mentioned the trade union bill in the Lords, I would

remind the House that we are seeking to give trade union members the

choice about whether they contribute to the Labour Party or not. Two

nations to our party are from people who choose to donate to our side of

the political spectrum. They have to depend on people who are obliged to.

That is what has the change. I am also grateful for the

collaborative discussions that have taken place on the short money

motion. The motion will be published before next week. On the

money-laundering points, I agree with him. This concern is shared on

all sides of the House. We cannot have a situation, not just when

individual members, but members of their families are affected by a

change that is unacceptable. We have discussed it with the Treasury and

have received assurances that they believe people should not be

affected, but clearly, they are. I therefore will treat this as a

matter of great importance and I think we all should. He made a point

about anti-Semitism. Of course, anti-Semitism has featured recently

in a number of political activities, and that is unacceptable and should

always be so. But I should remind him. He makes a comment about the

election in London today. I would also remind him that anti-Semitism

was also present in elections a year ago in the general election in

London, and not from our side of the political spectrum. I hope he takes

the words he has said today and makes sure they are properly put

into route in his party. It is not acceptable in any part of life. It

should not happen. Finally, this week we had the revelation that the

shadow leader doesn't want to be shadow leader. He wants to be

Speaker, so much so that he appears to be even preparing a campaign

team. Of course, there is not a vacancy for your job. But I did have

an idea for him. This week is apprenticeship week, and I wondered

if you might consider taking him on as an apprentice Speaker. But there

is one small problem. If the honourable gentleman wants to be the

next Speaker, he needs to remember one thing. You need to be popular

and respected across the House, and he still has some work to do.

Could we have a debate on the TUC's dying to work campaign, which

focuses on strengthening legal protections for terminally ill

employees like my constituents Jackie Woodcock, who has been

treated badly by her employer, which tried to force her to resign? Mr

Speaker, my honourable friend raised this issue yesterday. She's right to

bring forward a case like this. I would hope every employer would

treat with respect and care anybody in such a terrible situation,

whether in the public or private sector. We expect decency from

employers in this country. Can I also thank the Leader of the House

for announcing next week's business. It is the usual day after the Budget

night before, and already, the wheels are coming off and the

smattering of fiscal fairy dust is wearing thin, revealing the useless

old banger underneath. I think all of us who listened to the Today

programme this morning enjoyed greatly the evisceration of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was asked, to gentle enquiring from

John Humphrys, what does it take to get sacked from his job? As he

defiantly tried to defend his own targets. We also have to commend

some of the conservative disabled activists who have made their voices

heard in the last 24 hours, particularly with that website. Even

conservative members are recognising in this Budget the redistribution

aspect of it from the poorest to the wealthiest. That is what

characterises this Budget more than anything else. The Leader of the

House often talks about him and I wandering through the same lobby.

Maybe next week, we will have this opportunity with the tampon tax. I

opposed this because of women being taxed for their biology. Leader of

the House, come on. You and I can much through the lobby together to

oppose the Chancellor and his EU politicised Budget. Regulations that

deprive overseas pensioners of the operating to the pension has been

forced through this House without any debate. Some 550,000 pensioners

will be included in this with so many people involved, half a

million, surely you have to have some sort of statement from the

government about their intent in this regard and I hope the Leader of

the House will give with this. Last week, my constituents got in touch

with my office, watching the spectacle in this place. They were

appalled at the behaviour of a small number of politically motivated,

predominantly conservative members filibustering on private members'

bills, just to stop consideration of bills that they don't personally

like. We saw an almost destructive glory in the way they filibuster

against the NHS bill. Of course, they are entitled to do this

according to the rules and boy, did they take advantage. But why is it

only private members' bills that this applies to? The rest of the

debates in this House are properly timetabled and regulated. This has

to end. Our constituents are taking an increasing interest in these

private members' bills. There is a procedural committee looking at

this, I accept that. A strong we worded message from the leader of

saying this cannot go on would be helpful. Lastly, tugged away in the

Budget statement yesterday were plans to extend English modes for

English law to income tax. But apparently, legislation is quiet for

this. With the Leader of the House explain how this will be progressed

what type of legislation will be put in place, and will it give us the

opportunity to properly scrutinise this dog's breakfast that is Evel? I

would love to hear the leader's remarks on that. First up, the

honourable gentleman talked about evisceration is in interviews. I

presume he heard the interview with Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First

Minister, on the Sunday Politics last week, which could not expect

how her sums added up she could not explain how it was possible for

Scotland to carry on spending the same amount of money without tax

increases or how she would deal with the huge Budget deficit without

spending cuts. So if we are talking about people with no idea how to

manage an economy, no idea how to manage finances, we just have to

look to Edinburgh. He talked about the Budget more broadly. He talked

about people on low incomes. Our policy since 2010 has taken the

lives of people back into work and lifted more than half a million

children out of households where no one works into an environment where

people get up in the morning and go to work and bring a sense of

responsibility to their lives. By 2019, the top 20% of our population

will pay 50% of all taxes. This is a government that is proud of its

record, that has made a difference to this country. All we hear from

the party opposite is carping about success. He talked about the bill

last Friday. I find it baffling that he is complaining about the handling

in this house of an NHS bill. The last time I looked, the NHS in

Scotland was devolved. So why is the SNP so concerned about debates in

this House about the National Health Service, when this House has nothing

to do with the National Health Service in Scotland? Surely it is

another example of SNP opportunism. And he talks about English votes for

in just laws. -- English votes for English laws. We were clear that

this would apply to tax measures which do not apply in Scotland. It

seems not fair to me that the SNP should be able to impose increased

taxes upon the English if they gang up with others to do so. That is

what we sought to avoid. That is what our reforms will make sure

cannot happen in future. Can I follow up with my right honourable

friend his response on money-laundering? When are we going

to have a debate about this? Will the government commit to voting

against these proposals, and does my right honourable friend agree that

the current proposals show that we are being contaminated in our public

life by the corruption in the rest of the European Union? This is an

important point. I am looking into this as a matter of urgency. It is

important not just for people in this House, but for members of

families as well. We will need to discuss this on a cross-party basis.

We want to make sure this cannot affect our only members, our

parents, children and siblings as well as ourselves. The Leader of the

House and myself are becoming very good pen friends, writing to each

other on a regular basis. Following our recent correspondence, I welcome

the leader's commitment to ensuring sufficient chamber time to be found

for the number of days allocated to the backbench business committee.

That is provided for in standing order 14. However, I note our views

are not aligned on the nub of days that are to be allocated this

session. Standing order 14 is clear that only days when backbench

business have presidents should count towards the allocation. I

think there is a dispute about the number of days that remain to us.

Might I suggest that there might be merit, touting the clerks of our

committee to make sure there is clarity on the amount of backbench

time remaining so that the government does not find itself in

the unfortunate position of falling short of the amount of time required

to provide the backbench community on the floor of the house? I did not

realise they have so much influence. Last week, when I spoke in my

exasperation about Newcastle United, within 24 hours, there was a change

of management! Office chair of the backbench business committee.

Exercises and influence beyond what we previously knew! The Leader of

the House. I hope for his sake that the result of a change is that his

team marches to survival in the Premier League, although I notice

they did not manage it last week in their match against Leicester. But I

suspect that most of us who support other teams, perhaps not Tottenham

supporters, but the rest of us, for at least the last eight weeks have

been Leicester City supporters. We wish them well for the remainder of

the season. I hope the honourable gentleman manages to turn up at St

James' Park next season cheering on a Premier League team. In terms of

the allocation of time, the difference between us is that there

was a period of time at the start of this session after the general

election before the backbench business committee could be formed,

so a number of days were set aside for general debates. I am happy to

meet him to talk about that, but if the backbench committee is only

there for a part of a session, there are time pressures that we have to

cater for. I remember making sure there was time for general debates

in that period before his committee was formed and I am happy to talk to

him about it. Would my right honourable friend find time for a

debate on the erecting of statues in the centre of London? I find it

extraordinary that in Westminster Square, there is no statue of the

first female Prime Minister and more pertinently, that there is no statue

of Her Majesty The Queen, the longest reigning monarch ever and

about to celebrate her 90th birthday. First of all, on the

Queen, I think we all look forward to celebrating her 90th birthday. We

look forward to activities up and down the country and of course, we

should all be thankful to my honourable friend the Mayor of

London and the Secretary of State for Transport for deciding that

Crossrail should be named the Elizabeth line, a fitting tribute to

the Queen. On the subject of a statue of Margaret Thatcher, I know

the shadow leader, a champion of equality and opportunities for

women, would join me in thinking it is appropriate for Britain's first

female Prime Minister to be celebrated in such a way. Didn't the

House reach a historic low in political opportunism yesterday,

when the Prime Minister defended himself and his lamb a double record

on air pollution by claiming credit for the clean air act, which was

passed by this House ten years before he was born? The subject is a

serious one and I recently had a debate that was pulled because the

government didn't have us suitable blister available. -- did not have a

suitable minister available. 9000 people die every year because of

abolition, 70 in the city I represent -- because of air

pollution, and there are no plans to make our policies even legal. This

is a scandal that should be addressed. I would make two points.

Firstly, it is an issue that we are dressing, for example through the

work we have put in to incentivise hybrid and electric cars and looking

at ways to cut emissions from power stations. We have done as much as

any previous government. The point that and macro misses that we on

this side of the House are proud to be part of a party that over the

last 200 years has been responsible for most of this country's great

social reforms. That is a track record but we regard as a foundation

upon which we should build for the future.

Cross Cani Chase there are many voluntary groups supporting families

with dementia. -- cannot chase. Will my right honourable friend join me

in commending the work of this group as well as the others who provide

this incredibly valuable support, and can we have a debate in

government time to discuss what further support will be provided to

those families affected by dementia? As my honourable friend may know,

members of the Cabinet went through the training module to be a dementia

friend couple of years ago, and it was enlightening. I have experienced

dementia and my family and it taught me things I did not previously now,

so the work that is done by these groups make a real difference to

those who are suffering and also to those who are helping those who are

suffering. I commend her, her colleagues and those involved in

this area of the work. While I welcome the budget news regarding

further small business rate relief, I am concerned with the impact this

will have on local authorities, such as my own. Can we have a debate to

discuss what measures will be put in place to ease the burden on

cash-strapped councils, many of whom are already struggling to balance

books? First of all, as we heard last week there have been people on

those benches who say that we need to do something about the business

rate impact on small businesses. I am delighted the Chancellor did that

in his budget statements. I did not notice I mentioned to that in the

remarks earlier. Next Monday and Tuesday she will have the

opportunity to put those discussions in place. The front page of the

Jewish Chronicle today gives a litany of the anti-Semitism that

sadly we are beginning to see more and more frequently in the ranks of

the Labour Party, and in other institutions like universities in

this country. Can we have a debate on the subject of the increasing

anti-Semitism in public bodies and institutions? This is an important

point, where I agree with the Shadow leader and my honourable friend,

anti-Semitism has no place in our society, and when we hear words from

the parties opposite, we have heard of too many occasions in the past 12

months where they have tolerated tolerated anti-Semitism in their

ranks. That is unacceptable and something they should change.

I was shocked to learn the House has still been using Betamax tapes for

parliamentary recordings, and they now have to stop because they are

not being produced any longer. Technological adaptation is slow,

can he do this and update on steps being taken to update this?

Honourable members will be aware that trials have been taking place

on the use of tablets in division lobbies. Those trials are now

beginning to show distinct improvements, which is likely to be

the way we record in the future, which allows us to publish things

quickly. I do not support going further on swipe cards, as the

opportunities we have to go through the division lobby... HMS

Shropshire, a heavy cruiser, was completed for the Royal Navy and

served with distinction until 1942. Can we have a debate on when the

Royal Navy will once again name and naval ship after Shropshire? He

makes his point in his customary way, and I'm sure the Ministry of

Defence will have noted his comments. There will be plenty of

opportunities for ships to carry the name of his county. Could the leader

help honourable members who are keen to meet the young constituents

coming to the excellent new education centre, but find getting

into the education centre quite a trial. It is easier to get into Fort

Knox and it is to get into the education centre with the level of

security. As you know this is a subject which is of concern to me.

This is a matter that is subject to discussion. We have to take

appropriate steps for child protection and make sure common

sense applies. Sometimes with the budget you have to read the redbrick

to see what it was really about and to see what the Chancellor meant, --

the Redbook. There was a lot of loading of debt reduction, and I

understand that on the 24th of June, when we come out of the EU, he will

have ?15 billion a year to reduce the public debt. So in regard to

that, we had a tie produced for him with his initials on it. I think it

does to jobs. That the Chancellor wants to come out of the EU, and he

can promote it himself. Could we have a written statement on that?

Yes, far be it from me to comment on the aesthetic virtues or otherwise

of the tie, but the use of props in this place is generally deprecated.

The honourable gentleman has got away with it. He is always ingenious

in a variety of different ways. He makes his point in his effective

way, and I know he is playing an active part in the campaign to leave

the European Union. I suspect he may have more of a challenge than he

thinks to change the Chancellor's mind on this. And maybe more of a

challenge to ask the Chancellor to a tie of that colour. The Leader of

the House might not know this, but it is estimated that autism costs

this country ?23 billion a year. Today after the budget it is worth

about that some. You're a great supporter of autism charities and

often host events in your rooms. But isn't it the fact that we have

recently found we have taken away the educational element of the

personal allowance by people on the autism spectrum received, which

means they cannot get education. Can we have a debate on this? First of

all, I share his understanding and his view on the issue of autism.

There is some fantastic work done in society to help young people on the

autistic spectrum, and I pay tribute to a school in my constituency and

its counterparts around the country that do a fantastic job working with

young people. I would say to him that as a government we have looked

more money into education, more money into the support we provide

for people with disabilities, and there is enormously good work being

done around the country. The Leader of the House may be aware that the

new leader furnished hospital in Henley has now reopened and treated

its first patient. Would he agree to have a debate on the future of

community and local hospitals will be can reinforce the message that

this clear is in the best interest of patients? I remember when I was

helping with the campaign to get my honourable friend elected for the

first time, so I am the weighted to see that the work he has done since

then has come to fruition and his town has a great new facility. On

Tuesday he will have the opportunity to tell the Secretary of State how

much difference it will make to his constituency. Given that recesses

approaching, the upcoming regulations that will deprive

550,000 overseas pensioners will be enacted when we return to this

House. Will the government bring forward a debate to allow us to

consider this? This issue has been raised on many occasions, and when

these pensions were moved, they were aware of the arrangements. It would

cost many hundreds of millions to sort this out. The government has no

plans to do so. Could the Leader of the House seek that Treasury

Minister attends the chamber to discuss the decision about Lloyds

bank to redeem notes early rather than waiting until they reached

maturity? We will have the debate over the next three days in the

budget, -- on the budget, and we will discuss this. The Chief

secretary will be here on Tuesday to make sure he raises the point. I

welcomed the Prime Minister's statement about universal superfast

broadband. That was a few months ago. Can we have a debate in

government time so we can see the mechanisms for it going forward? We

are all in favour of it, it should be debated, we should know exactly

what to do, and I could offer Anglesey as a pilot scheme. It is a

priority for the government to provide superfast broadband and

connectivity to all rural areas. I would want to see Anglesey included

in that. We have made good progress, we have got as far as any other

country in Europe in developing modern communication networks, but

there is work to do. In the last Parliament, the government tasked

the Law Commission with drafting a wildlife Bill. That may -- they have

done. Could he say when such legislation might come forward? We

cannot give advanced notice of what will be in the Queens speech in May,

but I have spoken to the ministers involved, who tell me they are

looking at the issue carefully and have to respond over the course of

this year, and Law Commission bills are normally given a parliamentary

slot, but I cannot commit to an exact timetable. Yesterday the

government claimed to be on the side of both the workers and the Next

Generation. Could be there for half action beyond the rhetoric and have

an urgent debate on the irony that workers aged under 25 are excluded

from the government's new national living wage? The evidence we are on

the side of workers and young people is in the number of apprenticeships,

the deep crease in the number of unemployed junk people, we are

making real progress. When I took over as employment Minister in 2010,

I regarded with some trepidation though sessions I had with six

formers and college students talking about their future prospects. I

would not have such trepidation today. They have business

investment, opportunities. It is a transformed picture compared to six

years ago. For the last two decades, the level of transport

infrastructure spend in London has dwarfed that of the regions. Perhaps

in the region of ten to one. That the government has come forward to

build Crossrail two, which so far has received no scrutiny in this

House. Could we have a debate in government time regarding this? He

is right to talk about the need to provide balance across the country

in investment and infrastructure. But if we look back at the years of

Labour government can do project that sat on the shelf, they are

being built. -- project that sat on the shelf, they are now being built,

which I did not see happening when the opposition were in power. Can we

have a debate on the withdrawal of mobility cars, which is preventing

disabled people carrying out jobs they have secured. Does it make any

sense to put disabled people out of work in this way? There will be

debates on the budget and on any changes in the welfare system, but I

will remind him that it is important for government to ensure we provide

support with that is needed, when it is needed, but we also get the best

value for taxpayers money. Trees are important to us all, some might say

in transforming much of the hot air that we expend, but particularly

ancient trees are bio by the, and there are only 2% left in the

country. Bio diverse. Can we have a debate about the protection of

ancient woodland? We must protect ancient woodland and

also create woodlands for the future. One of the most exciting

developments over the last few years have been the Woodland Trust's plan

for new forests in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to

commemorate the centenary of the First World War by turning farmland

into a Forest that will be enjoyed by generations to come. My

honourable friend is right, we need to protect what we have got, but we

need to create the ancient woodlands of the future as well. I have yet to

hear a satisfactory response to previous pensions questions I have

asked. So it is no surprise that the government is trying to force

through operating regulations which will have a devastating impact on

fully paid-up UK pensioners living overseas. The government cannot keep

ignoring these groups of people who have done the right thing. Surely we

must have an urgent debate to allow this to be properly discussed. There

has just been a debate on the issue of women's pensions. But the

honourable lady does not accept is that we do not agree with her. My

view on the issue of women's pensions is that it is a difficult

one. Putting any transition in place is always difficult because someone

is always affected by the changes, but if we are to have an affordable

and fair pension system for the future, we have to put through some

of these changes and sometimes not make changes, even though people may

want them. Many of my constituents are concerned about post Office

plans to move their local branch, despite strong local objections.

Given that many such changes, good and bad, will be made by the Post

Office in constituencies across the country in the coming years, can we

have a debate on the post office's approach to its branch modernisation

programme and on its approach to consultation and taking into

consideration the views of local people? This is something that is

visible to members across the country. As my honourable friend

says, there has been a range of changes within the post office. I

would say that at least this is about upgrading post offices. We

have often battled to save post offices from closures. Now there is

an opportunity for them. We have seen sadly in the past, the

disappearance of many local bank branches. Of course, the post office

offers an alternative to many small businesses and I hope that will help

secure its future in many communities. This probably does not

need a debate, but this morning my question to DEFRA was

unceremoniously dumped by the department. Could the Leader of the

House looked at the possibility of ensuring that when such a thing

happens, that the department contact the table office rather than letting

them know by letter, which I only received yesterday? The honourable

lady once a statement on the matter. I am happy to give her a short one.

The question concerned was transferred between departments

because it was judged to be the best place for the question to be

answered. I have ensured that her question will be answered today. I

do think the department concerned did the right thing in telling her

that, but I will pass on the message that they might consider telling the

table office as well. Can we have a debate on inward investment? This

will give the House the opportunity to consider the announcements in the

past few days from Avon products, who intend to move their worldwide

headquarters from the United States of America to the UK, and from the

South African owned company who plan to create 6000 jobs in South Wales.

Those are two really good announcements which we welcome.

Given all the pressures in the steel industry, we want to see as many new

investments in Wales as possible. The honourable gentleman says it is

labour. Actually, it is because this government made the UK a strong

place for international businesses to invest. We also saw the decision

to build a new factory to build Aston Martin cars in south Wales. It

is reassuring to see that even in a difficult time internationally, the

UK is still seen as a strong place for international investment in the

long term. As of today, 78 members of this house, from seven parties

including the government party, have signed an EDM seeking to know a

statutory instrument freezing pensions. Regulations that deprive

overseas pensioners of blue uprating adjustment to their state pension

have been forced through this House without a debate. Will the

government hid the cross-party initiative to annul this revelation

and bring forward a debate urgently to assess the devastating impact

these changes will have on UK pensioners living abroad and perhaps

this time, he might answer the question. I have answered the

question. I have been the work and pensions minister and have looked at

this issue before. The government has no intention of changing the

current situation. The cost of doing so would be enormous and the

situation these pensioners face has been in place for decades. Horlick

nationwide Limited are a recruitment business in rugby who have developed

IT software to much HGV drivers with haulage contractors. Last year, the

NHS spent 3.3 billion on agency staff and ministers are working to

reduce this figure. The owner of Katmai College believes he can match

available medical staff with hospital trusts and has outed

talking to the NHS innovations team. May we have a debate to consider how

companies in the private sector can share innovative ideas with the

public sector? My honourable friend talks about what sounds like a very

interesting opportunity. One of the tragedies of the argument that comes

particularly from those benches about removing the private sector

from the NHS is that we would lose the opportunity to see that kind of

innovation. People in my constituency of Halifax are under

pressure and facing hospital reconfiguration. We understand that

pharmacies are facing a cut of 6%, which the government expects will

see up to 3000 closed nationally. Can we have a debate to discuss the

role of pharmacies, the role they play in alleviating the pressures on

GP surgeries and our A departments and how those pressures would get

worse if we saw up to 3000 closed nationwide? I know this is an issue

of concern. The government is sticking to ensure we use the money

we have as effectively as possible, that we are funding the right mix of

pharmacies. We want to see pharmacies in all those communities

where they are required. I have no doubt this will be brought before

the House in due course. The minister responsible, my honourable

friend for North East Bedfordshire, is sensitive to the concerns she has

raised and he will seek to do the right thing in making sure we have a

balance between spending money wisely and maintaining the right mix

of pharmacy services. Will the Leader of the House make time for a

debate on the effect of sodium valproate, a drug given to treat

epilepsy and other neurological conditions, but which has an impact

on unborn babies? My constituent is campaigning for years following the

birth of her two sons, who were affected by this drug, which is

still being prescribed today. This is obviously a difficult and

sensitive issue. I don't know enough about the drug, but I will make sure

the Health Secretary is aware of the concerns she has raised. He is here

next week and I would ask her to consider bringing it up with health

minister is then as well. I previously asked the Leader of the

House if this House would have a debate on the disproportionate size

of the House of Lords compared to the House of Commons, but it was

dismissed, so I will try again. Can we have a debate on the role of a

bicameral parliament in a representative moxie in the 21st

century in order to consider whether it is appropriate that more than

half of the members of the UK Parliament are appointed by the

Prime Minister, rather than elected by the people? Last week, I remember

that the party opposite were praising the House of Lords for one

of the votes they had passed through. Right now, this country has

greater priorities than sorting out changing and reforming the House of

Lords. The Leader of the House didn't and so one of the points

raised by the honourable member for Perth and North Perthshire. There is

an amendment on the order paper today timetabled by colleagues from

Berwick-upon-Tweed, asking as a Budget amendment to remove the

tampon tax. Will he support this in solidarity with members Brexit women

across the country? Of course, the imposition of VAT on women's

sanitary products is a matter for the European Commission. We have

made representations as a government and are expecting a response

shortly. I hope the commission will agree with every person in this

House that this tax is inappropriate. If no one has yet

done so, may I wish you, Mr Speaker, with a certain amount of Irish blood

in me, a happy St Patrick's Day to you and a whole House? Mr Speaker,

it is unacceptable that this government should choose to do

nothing, not even allow a debate on the hugely important issue of the

uprating regulations of state pensions. It will affect half a

million or more overseas pensioners and will lead to them having their

pensions frozen. The Leader of the House is aware that this is due in

to come into force while this House is in recess, and given the depth of

feeling across this House, surely this is an issue worthy of an urgent

debate? This issue has been considered many times over the

years. The government position on it has not changed. The First Minister

of Scotland is committed to not 95 or any other figure, but 100%

coverage for superfast broadband for Scotland. Given that the UK controls

the regulations over mobile signals, can we have a debate on how the UK

Government might achieve that for mobile signals across the UK? We are

working to achieve that and we are looking ahead to the reduction of

five GN this country. I wait with interest to see how successful the

First Minister of Scotland is, having made a substantial promise.

Some of her promises in the past have not come to fruition. This

House rightly celebrates community champions. One group organised a

lunch for disabled people who would otherwise have spent Christmas Day

on their own. Isolation affects millions. Can I ask if we can debate

this serious issue? It is clearly a big challenge for our society and

something that can only be dealt with in local communities and by the

kind of work he has described, which I praise. As he will know, I have

suggested to the backbench business community that they might set aside

a day for the whole House to debate the work of voluntary sector groups

that can make such a difference to people like those he describes.

Given the well-known views of the Leader of the House on matters

European, can I urge him to come to the aid of the thousands of UK

citizens living in the EU who face being deprived of their pension

upgrade, a move which is not even going to be discussed in this House?

And I urge him to overcome the European democratic deficit and

organise such a debate? That does not apply in the EU. On that same

theme, apart from the general unfairness of the frozen pensions,

analysis has shown that the frozen pensions prevent some pensioners

from emigrating and forces others to return to the country. So reversing

that would save money on health, welfare and housing, which should

appeal to the Leader of the House. Therefore, I will try again. Can we

have a debate on this? I am not of the view that government policy

should be about getting pensioners to move to other countries. The

Leader of the House wrote to me on the 24th of February in relation to

the issue of the pension fund of employees of the Commonwealth War

Graves Commission and said to me on the 24th of February that no

decision had been made. Yet on the 29th of February, ministers had said

a final decision was made in September. Could the Leader of the

House provide a statement as to why he gave such inaccurate information?

I would not have made that comment without having been told by the

Ministry of Defence that that was the case, so I will have to ask them

to respond to him. Order. Statement, the Secretary of State for Wales.

Secretary Stephen Crabb. I will make a statement on the publication of

the report of the mercury view. On the 5th of November 2012, the Prime

Minister announced the stubs of an independent review into the scope

and conduct of Sir Ronald Waterhouse inquiry into allegations of child

abuse in care homes include between 1974 and 1990. We are talking about

dark and shameful events that are stain on our nation. These were

children in the care of the state because they were vulnerable and the

state let them down. Our first thought will always be the

victims, supporting them in bringing the perpetrators to justice. A