24/11/2016 Business Questions


Live coverage of the announcement of Commons business for the week ahead and questions to the Leader of the Commons David Lidington.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



recommend we all watch that. That's very good news, because she is an


house can testify. If I can say so house can testify. If I can say so


myself, a fine appointment... By me. Business question. But the leader of


the house please give us a forthcoming business? The business


for next week will be as follows. Monday, the remaining stages of the


Digital economy Bill. Tuesday, second reading of the Commonwealth


development Corporation Bill, followed by post private business,


as announced by the chairman. Wednesday, opposition day, 14th


allotted day. There will be a debate and motion in the name of the


Scottish National party, subject to be announced. Thursday, debate and


motion on transgender equality, followed by general debate on the


future of the UK fishing industry. Friday, private members bills. The


provisional business for the week commencing the 5th of December will


include as follows, Monday 5th of December two reading of the children


and social work Bill, Lords. Tuesday the 6th of December quarter


remaining stages of the health service medical supplies costs bill.


Wednesday 7th of November, opposition day, 15th allotted day.


There will be a debate on opposition motion, subject to be announced.


Thursday the 8th of December, debate and a motion on UN national day for


elimination of violence against women, followed by a general debate


on cancer strategy, one year on. Friday the 9th of December, the


house will not be sitting. I should also like to inform the house that


the business in Westminster Hall by the 8th of December will be a debate


on the fourth report of the Scottish affairs committee on post study


works schemes. Interview of yesterday's conclusion of the trial


of the man who murdered our late colleague Jo Cox, I hope you will


allow me to say that I believe the entire house would wish first to


express our thanks to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service for


the work that they did in bringing this man to trial and securing his


conviction. Second, to send our solidarity and I would love to her


family, who I think I've shown quite unbelievable grace, dignity and


courage in the months just passed. And the road, I hope we can all


agree that perhaps the best tribute that we hear, what ever our party


politics, can pay to Jill and her memory -- Jo and her memory, is to


recommit ourselves to do all that lies within our power to make sure


that this country remains a place where people of different ethnic


origins and different faiths can live together in mutual respect,


goodwill and harmony and can celebrate together our common


citizenship and our shared institutions and values and


traditions. And that we will also continue unflinchingly to stand for


the truth that it is through parliamentary democracy that we can


seek to secure a change and find a better future for those who sent us


here, rather than through violence or extremism. I thank him for what


he has just said. The power and beauty of those words clearly it


will resonate with all of us. Can I thank the leader of the house for


those words, he shows what a great parliamentarian he is, and associate


myself absolutely with everything he said about those people who have


brought the murderer to justice. I need to ask the Leader of the House,


because he hasn't mentioned this, about the dates for the recess after


February. We need to know, because obviously, if the Prime Minister


says she is going to trickle article 50 in March, we need to know if


we're going to be away in recess, if we're going to have a debate, what


is the mechanism? Will the Prime Minister be making an announcement


on the steps of Downing Street, will she do it in a phone call? She will


relinquish the EU presidency by telephone. Could we know the


mechanism? The British people need to know the framework. As soon as


article 50 is triggered, the European Council will draw up a


negotiating mandate, the guidelines, without the UK's participation. Mr


Speaker, the Ministry of Justice Izzy troubled department. Hardly 24


hours had gone by and we have the first concession. It turns out that


the figures in the government proposals for the last reform are


out of date and will be updated to the implementation process, so the


consultation referred to the 12 judicial guidelines as a basis for


the figures instead of the more generous 13th edition, which


significantly increases the guideline damages from the blast. So


that is what happens when you have a policy and found the evidence for


it, rather than evidence -based policy. It takes a riot and a


breakdown before money is given to the prison service, despite numerous


calls for that. The health Department is troubled. I don't know


if representations were made by the Health Secretary, but he nowhere to


be seen. Every former Health Secretary for the last 20 years has


signed an open letter to the government to honour the pledge to


the public to restore parity for mental health, so good Leader of the


Has seen what the response was to that letter of duty place in the


library? According to Cancer Research UK, there are long waits


for results. Early diagnosis is vital for treatment. Shortages of


specialists in those areas. There are many members who are undergoing


treatment for cancer. We wish all of them well and their families and


everyone who has touched by cancer. We wish them a speedy recovery. The


Autumn Statement was a statement for the elite. The Chancellor said


Oxford and Cambridge would become a transformational tech college,


drawing on world-class research strengths. Elitism not based on


evidence, because the university league tables of 2017 but Oxford and


Cambridge third and fourth. Imperial was first, LSE second, Cardiff


birth, and Edinburgh in the top ten. But we have a statement of what will


be available for the other universities? They don't have a


historic wealth that Oxford and Cambridge do. In a previous outing


at the dispatch box, I asked for money for local government. Will the


government is in desperate need, but the money has now gone to unelected


bodies, rather than local authorities. The Minister for the


Northern Powerhouse said, if you sign up to a directly elected mayor,


you have funding in the hands of one person. Another letter from county


councils, they said, funding should not be on arbitrary prioritisation


of the specific government model. Money should flow according to need.


This is not a statement for women, so could we have a debate on the


impact of the state of the budget statement on women? Women are not


satisfied by a passing reference to Camberley, we want more. 65% of


those earning too little to pay income tax and women. The 3 million


per women's charities is just a balance for the millions raised


under the tampon tax, 12 million of which has been given away by the


previous Chancellor. Despite 74 written questions on social care,


there is no mention of extra money. Cuts to social care hit women


particularly hard, because the majority of those needing care and


providing it is women. Just about managing is a government product, it


is home made jam. I would like to thank those who played in tribute to


Jo Cox. Her love, values and example lives on in all of us. Governments


are not just about fixing the roof. We are about transforming lives. Let


us dedicate ourselves to that task in her memory. If I can try and


respond fairly briefly to the large number of questions that she put to


me. On recess dates, I do understand the patients on all sides to know


Easter recess dates. I have not been able to announce those today, I hope


there will be in a position to announce us very soon. She asked


about the process for triggering article 50. That has to be a formal


notification to the European Council. She asked about the


rather hoped that she would have rather hoped that she would have


welcomes the action the government is taking as regards whiplash,


because that is something I thought had commanded quite widespread


support in all parts of the house, but we are now embarking on this


consultation with a view to legislation at some stage, once the


consultation has concluded. I hope we will be able to build a


cross-party coalition in support of such measures. She was unfairly


dismissive of the ambitious vision for the transformation of our prison


service that was contained within the white Paper on prisons, launched


by Mike Right Honourable friend the Justice Secretary just a fortnight a


go. She asked me about the Secretary of State for Health and the health


Department, the Secretary of State was answering questions here earlier


this week. She enquired about mental health, it is this government that


has not only invested more in mental health than any of its predecessors,


but, which for the first time, has written into law a requirement for


physical and mental health to be given equal priority. And she asked


about cancer treatment. What is happening within the health service,


despite the demographic and other pressures that there aren't totally


are on the National Health Service and in part due to the money this


government has put in, but also the reforms is government has taken, we


have seen, since 2010, an increase of some 822,000 in the number of


people seen by a cancer specialist, and an increase of 49,000 in the


number of people who are commencing cancer treatment. Yes, there is more


work to be done, but that is not a bad track record to be getting on


with. The Oxford and Cambridge Expressway, I think she fell into


the trap of believing this rather stale, antiquated class war rhetoric


that she gets from the leadership of her priority. The Oxford to


Cambridge Expressway would benefit places like Milton Keynes and like


Bedford, where, at some stage in the more distant past, the Labour Party


once thought they might win constituencies or local councils. Is


a sign of The Times that the party opposite appears to have given up


such communities. That Expressway, that corridor offers opportunities


for economic growth and to unlock significant new housing development


in areas of high demand, when the party has been calling for more


house-building to take place. It was leaders in the North who are


good for the model of devolution that we had, precisely so there


could be an allegation for central government funds for those devolved


authorities to enable strategic planning and expenditure today


please. She will find the housing investment infrastructure fund,


targeted in particular that local authorities who are able to come


forward and bid in areas that will unlock additional housing supply. On


social care, yes, I happily acknowledge, as the Prime Minister


did yesterday, that there are pressures on social care, we see


that in our constituencies, but this government has introduced the better


care fund, and the social care at preset to put some extra money in


the system to help local authorities to cope with those demands. If I can


turn finally to what she said about the position of women, there are


more women in work now in this country than ever before. It is this


government that has increased the level of support to families through


childcare than any of its predecessors. Those are things that


would have worked very much to the benefit of women in all walks of


life. And I think if she looks at the distribution analysis published


yesterday by the Treasury, she will see that the Chancellor's measures


yesterday provided a modest but positive improvement in the incomes


and living standards of all details in our society apart from the


richest. And the richest would experience a modest loss after those


measures. But I do want to completely endorse and to associate


myself with her remarks on violence against women and her tributes to


those honourable friends who have played a part in that work. I hope


that she will also agree with me that we need to stand firm against


violence against women and girls in all its forms both here and


globally, and the work that was initiated by my right honourable and


noble friend Lord Haig, when he was Foreign Secretary, to awaken the


world's conscience to the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war


and try to secure the extirpation of that vile practice continues under


this government and I hope will continue under all British


governments in the future. Can I also associate myself with the


remarks made by the leader of a House about our colleague, Joe -- Jo


Cox, she made such a big impact on country in a short time. The


Paralympics started in our county, in the Leader of the House's


constituency, Stoke Mandeville, and we were terribly impressed by the


achievements of our Paralympics teams in the last Olympic Games. At


the last budget the Chancellor announced ?1.5 million to be spent


on research and issuing running blades to children. I am afraid to


report eight months on, not a single child has yet received running


blades. The Leader of the House probably knows that it has not got


out of the starting blocks, and I wondered if there is anything he can


do to move this into the fast lane because then we could a debate on


how we can inspire our next generation of Paralympians, to the


credit of the screen. Double I'd better declared an interest as the


patron of the National Paralympic Heritage trust. It seeks to maintain


the Heritage of Stoke Mandeville is the birthplace of the Paralympic


movement. I was concerned by what my right honourable friend has just


said and I will take this up with my colleagues at the Treasury and the


Department of Culture, Media and Sport to see what can be done. Can I


thank losing the business and grand associate with the remark made by


the trial yesterday, which finally saw the conviction of the appalling


act. As the Leader of the House, today he spoke on the half of the


whole House, and hopefully his words will help us all recover and move


forward. It is barely 24 hours since the Chancellor said that his Autumn


Statement, and already we have the Conservative Party fighting among


itself about how big the Brexit disaster is going to be. Today it is


the OBR, the doom and gloom, who are the villains of the peace after they


predicted this could be a ?60 billion premium which will be paid


for this clueless Brexit. Can we have a debate on the economic


consequences of this Brexit? Maybe the Leader of the House could help


us out. Who should we best trust, the OBR and honourable member from


Chingford Green? Could we have a debate about Ferrero Rocher? I


cannot understand what problem this government has with an ambassador,


Nigel Farage? The EU referendum was won on his terms and conditions,


we're practically living in the early days of a Ukip UK. What could


possibly go wrong with him going to Trump Tower? Lastly, in its latest


escapade in trying to read scrutiny, we learn that exiting the European


Union is not going to come -- the head of the European Union is not


prepared to come in front of the Treasury committee, and in


correspondence to me he said he is not prepared to come before the


select committees of this House man the Brexit committee. -- other than


the Brexit committee. Can the Leader of the House convince his right


honourable friend that proper scrutiny must be in place and he


must come in front of the select committees of this House? Mr


Speaker, can I thank the honourable gentleman for his words. On the


question of the OBR and the Autumn Statement, the responsibility was


set up as an independent body in order to remove any suggestion that


the economic forecast were being tampered with on political grounds


by the government of the day. The OBR forecast yesterday -- forecasts


yesterday are their own, but it is sensible for the government to work


on the basis that they are accurate, and they are not out of kilter with


the main stream of other independent forecasters. The Bank of England is


a bit more pessimistic than the OBR in its contradictions. There are


many uncertainties. Will befall the value of sterling against other


currencies be maintained? And if it is, will importers be able to pass


on the price impact of that in terms of the price charged to customers?


But I think it is perfectly sensible for the Chancellor to have steered a


course in the light of the OBR forecast, and I think my right


honourable friend was completely honest with the House and country


yesterday in saying completely plainly, where the uncertainty and


difficulties lie, and not trying to wish away any of those problems that


guide his budget judgment. On the question of accountability of


ministers for the Department of exiting the European Union, we had


another debate yesterday on the impact Brexit from the EU, this time


on transport policy. I can give the honourable gentleman the promise


that the Secretary of State and his entire team will be here on Thursday


the 1st of September -- December, when he and his colleagues will have


the chance to interrogate them. Regarding the ambassadors, I do not


think they will be serving Ferrero Rocher at the embassy. But he will


be glad to know that British ambassadors are keen to offer a


selection of malt whisky is the aperitif of choice when they are


entertaining officially on the half of the country. We have an excellent


ambassador in the United States of America, it is certainly no vacancy


there. The last time I checked, Mr Farage had a very well-paid job as a


member of the European Parliament, although regrettably he also had one


of the worst attendance records at the European Parliament of any other


member, which suggests to me that to head up a UK embassy might not be a


job for which he is particularly suited. Yesterday in the Autumn


Statement we had the welcome news of additional finance of the


development of housing, and ?3.15 billion and 90,000 homes in London


alone, as well as a doubling of the money to combat rough sleeping in


London. Plus, the abolition of letting fees for tenants. Could my


right honourable friend find time for a debate on housing? I


understand there will be a work paper next month, but surely we


should have a debate in this House on housing so we make sure the money


is well spent and that much-needed housing across the country is


provided and all members have the opportunity to input, so we have


ideas and use the money effectively. There will be questions next Monday,


providing opportunities for housing issues to be raised. I want to pay


tribute to the tireless work of my honourable friend in pressing


forward his homelessness reduction Bill, and winning government support


for that. I am glad he paid tribute to the measures on rough sleeping


and the scrapping of let increases for rough sleeping announced


yesterday. While I think it is a good idea we should have a debate on


housing policy, probably that should await the publication of the White


Paper, which will give members on all sides of the House the


opportunity to comment upon government proposals rather than to


guess what they might be. Could I also add my thanks for the obviously


sincere and deeply heartfelt words that were expressed about our late


colleague Jo Cox. I am very grateful to him for that. The Leader of the


House announced that on the 8th of December we have two debates, one in


the debate on violence against women, and the cancer strategy one


year on. That demonstrates the importance of members of the House


if they wish to make a bid for time sensitive debates to bring their


applications to the committee in a timely fashion so we can plan ahead


and get those dates into the diary. Can I also ask, the clerk to our


committee does try to get the decisions and offers the committee


wish to make to members as soon as possible, but we also ask that


members respond to these offers as soon as possible, so we can actually


get the business sorted out. A number of members are sitting on a


response, and I would appreciate it if ministers could make their


feelings known as soon as possible to the clerk. I am grateful for his


kind words. The backbench business committee is playing an important


part of enabling members in all parts of the House to raise


important issues that matter to our constituents which might not


otherwise be heard, and I would endorse the advice he gives to


colleagues. This month we have seen another remarkable Poppy Appeal in


my constituency, with enormous sums of money raised, and thousands of


people turning out on Remembrance Sunday to pay tribute to the Armed


Forces, and to see many young people involved was fantastic. Can we have


a debate next week to pay tribute to the Royal British Legion for the


work they do but also to say thank you to those in our communities who


work tirelessly to make the Poppy Appeal is successful?


While I am unable to offer him a debate, I would like to pay tribute


to all those who worked to make the Poppy Appeal a success each year.


The appeal in Scotland is run by the Scottish Legionnaire. It is


important we all remember that, while it is the veterans of the


Second World War who tend to be particularly in our minds in


November, in these years, the Region and the revenues from the Poppy


Appeal go to support service men and women from much more recent


conflicts, Alton very young people who have suffered quite shocking


physical and mental injuries as a result of their servers and it is


important we remember this work is still relevant and important today.


Can I also thank the Reader for his eloquent remarks about Jo and her


legacy. BBC research as reported that investment in infrastructure


per head over the next five years will be 6457 for London, that only


1684 from Yorkshire and Humber. With last week was my decision not to


back the electrification of the line to Hull and no reference to the


Humber, capping a debate about the Northern Powerhouse and whether the


government is really serious about rebalancing is not on the north and


south but East and West? I think that is honourable members from each


side examined the Autumn Statement, they will find that all partners of


the United Kingdom will benefit from the infrastructure spending that the


Chancellor identified. I don't blame any member for making particular


plays on the part of their own constituency or the greater area


they represent. From memory, while it's not in Humberside, that is an


important slice of funding for a significant motorway junction


improvement around that Beverley area, which I think should benefit


Hull and the area the honourable lady represents, and if she looks


elsewhere in the statement, I think she will find Yorkshire and Humber


is going to benefit in a number of ways. Shortly before the summer


recess, the All-party Environmental Group of which I am chairman


published its report on the quality of new-build housing. There has been


a significant amount of new-build, but some of the quality has been


shoddy. Can we have a debate on this or please? As far as the government


is concerned, we want all new homes to be well designed and built to


good quality and standards. I think home-buyers are entitled to expect


nothing less. There needs to be an effective complaints procedure, for


example, through the consumer accord, where if people are


dissatisfied with the quality of their home, the particular report


that he mentioned, does raise important issues. And my honourable


friend 's in the Department for local communities and governments,


are looking at this closely and will respond in due course. A small and


rapidly formed private members bill on adding mother 's married names,


could we please have a statement debate in government time to see


where we're going on this, so we can have a bit of action before my


daughter gets married in February 2018? I know how frustrating it is


for honourable members who are low-down in the list on private


members Bill Dave. On Friday, I will work with the relevant Minister and


see whether there is anything we can do on this matter. May I associate


myself with the words of the Leader about Jo Cox and paid tribute to the


tremendous work she did on behalf of poor people all around the world.


Lord O'Neill launched a vital report in May on antimicrobial resistance


in May, in which he said the consequence of no action would be


$100 billion a year and 10 million lives lost in a year. Could we have


a debate in government time, since ours was a report commissioned by


the previous Prime Minister, on this, in which many members will be


pleased to contribute. He raises a very important point indeed. Since


Lord O'Neill's global review, the government has been supporting


research efforts, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, including ?51


million on research here in the UK, but also 265 million through the


Fleming Fund to support surveillance and lower and middle income


countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. I hope you will also welcome


the fact that in September, following an intense campaign led by


the Health Secretary and the Chief medical officer, there was an


agreement at the United Nations General Assembly to what was the


landmark declaration by 193 countries, agreeing to combat


antimicrobial resistance, which was identified as the biggest risk to


modern medicine. Getting this agreed internationally is a vital first


step towards the effect of action that we all want to see. Can I


associate my party with the remarks of the Leader and the shadow Reader,


the memory of Jo Cox will indeed endure for many years ahead.


Following the tragic death of a 21-year-old constituent of mine at


the hands of drink-driving in 2014, her family have committed themselves


campaign for reform of drink-driving sentencing guidelines, and presented


a 100,000 strong petition to Downing Street recently. We have a debate on


the need for that reform? Yes, it is a quite unspeakably tragic


experience for any parent, any farmer led to have to go through.


What I might suggest to the honourable gentleman is either to


seek an adjournment or a backbench committee debate on this subject.


But I would also draw his attention to the fact that the EU petition


system that we have now introduced in Westminster is also providing an


additional route by which this subject can be brought up and


debated in the Commons -- e-petitions. That might be something


else he wants to suggest to his constituency. Last night, in my


capacity as chairman of a group on retail crime, I attended an event


organised by newsagents. It is evident that those who work in


retail are very concerned about the level of not just left, but violence


against them. Google reader found time for the debating government


time to investigate this matter? I understand very much the point that


he is making. No employee working for retail, large or small should be


going to work fearful that he or she may be the victim violence. I think


this trend is, in part, due to things like the growth of the gang


culture we have seen in London and other big cities. As he knows, the


government is working with chief const is to try to address this


problem, defeat this threat. I can't promise a quick, easy answer, but I


think it will need determined work by the Home Office, by the Ministry


for justice but also critically for local police forces, their local


Police and Crime Commissioners, to make sure the right response is


given and this problem is properly addressed. Could he provide


government time for a statement on the BT arrangements in Brexit. While


we welcome the relief for the tampon tax fund, what will the Chancellor


do to make sure there is a secure long-term investment for vital


services and agree a date by which the tampon tax will finally come to


an end? I think my answer to the last point is that will depend in


part on whether there is is agreement first at EU level, while


we still remain members, and changes to EU law on value added tax.


Secondly, if that's not being dealt with by the time we leave the EU,


how rapidly we could then make that change of our own volition. But I


will ask Treasury ministers to contact her with the information she


is seeking. He brings forward approval to spend millions of pounds


on this palace and Buckingham Palace. We'll hear arrange for a


special screening of the film I, Daniel Blake, so we can remember


those who are losing benefits. I cannot think of anything more


damaging to the cause of constitutional monarchy than the let


them eat cake attitude which prioritises the rebuilding of


palaces while people are struggling for bread. I do think he is in


danger of going over the top here, not for the first time. Buckingham


Palace is a public building that is used by the monarch to exercise her


state functions as head of state. It is also a place in which thousands


of two lists visit and enjoy each year. The reason that the royal


household is facing the sort of Bill which shocks him is that these


decisions have been put off and a backlog of repairs has been allowed


to accumulate. So I think what was decided and announced a few days ago


was perfectly justifiable. I think in respect of sanctions, I just ask


him to bear in mind that I think it is fewer than 4% of recipients of


jobseeker's allowance have received any sort of benefit sanction and


fewer than 1% of recipients of employment support allowance, so


there can sometimes be mistakes by officials, yes, but I think we need


to recognise that the proportions involved are very small. And I also


associate myself with the Leader of the House's moving tribute to Jo


Cox. She is greatly missed. Figures released yesterday by the ONS show


that in the past five years, there have been a staggering 252,000 extra


winter deaths. But 25,000 people who died last winter alone. The rate of


deaths in winter in our country is almost twice that seen in Norway and


Germany. Given that we are experiencing a crisis that is


avoidable, will the Leader give consideration to having a debate so


that this matter can be most openly discussed? Any unnecessary death is


clearly a tragedy and everything possible should be done to avoid


that. In fairness, I need to point out that, partly due to the


extensive preparation for a winter that the NHS to, the excess winter


mortality last winter was Darren on the level it reached in the previous


year. Earlier this month, NHS England and Public-health England's


launched its Stay Well This Winter campaign, which reached a great


proportion of the over 65 's. The NHS is alive to these risks and is


taking action to alert elderly payable to what they can do to keep


themselves warm. Could I associate myself and my colleagues with the


comments of the Leader of the House about our late colleague Jo Cox and


say we must all respect people at a different religious, political or


difference. Yesterday we launched our first report into the visitor


economy and that report was about supporting skills and


apprenticeships and hospitality -- in the hospitality and Judaism


industry. It resulted in many different types of evidence


submitted to us, but it also said there are core issues affecting


apprenticeships in the fourth largest service injury. Around the


school curriculum, lack of career guidance and lack of encouragement


for people to go into the chef and catering industry. Would it be


possible to have a debate on this very important industry, which is


important to many parts of our constituencies in terms of Judaism,


and the direct relationship with the economy?


I was glad to hear about the report that she has prepared, and she


highlights an important issue. I think the government's commitment to


3 million apprenticeships needs to include tourism is one of the


sectors which are assisted, and she is right to draw attention to the


need for proper preparation and the right content in terms of those


apprenticeships, so that young people concerned are then seen as


readily employable, and when I have spoken to directors and managers in


the hospitality industry, they say that it is often difficult for them


to recruit UK citizens who are properly skilled for the work they


are offering, which is why they often look to people coming in from


other countries. We need to address that challenge. You may recall that


a few weeks ago I raised the question of tax treaties. This week


another double taxation relief order covering Turkmenistan was approved.


We are likely to see many more as a result of Brexit. Can I ask the


Leader of the House again if he will look at how members can be given


better advanced notice of when such treaties will be considered, and how


he might ensure this House has more opportunity and scrutiny of the UK


tax arrangements with other countries? The double tax treaties


are a sort of standard international agreement negotiated by British


governments of all political colours, and as the honourable


member knows, they are designed to ensure our citizens and those of the


other country concerned cannot be taxed twice by two separate Jude


extinctions on the same income. But I will draw his points about


scrutiny and parliamentary process to the attention of Treasury


ministers and perhaps I can write to him with some thoughts. I hope there


will be a permanent memorial to Jo Cox in this building, whether that


is a shield or a bust. But last Friday, we gave a second reading in


this House by more than two hundred votes to the parliamentary


constituencies amendment Bill. That cannot go to committee unless the


Leader of the House provides the appropriate motions. When will that


happen? On that point, we need to consider and take advice from the


Treasury about whether e-money resolution is needed in particular,


but I would also say to the honourable gentleman that he should


not forget that the legislation that established the current system for


detecting electoral boundaries and the terms of reference for the


boundaries commission were themselves the subject of


legislation passed by a clear majority in this House. I do not


think we can shy away from the principle that electorates are


grossly unequal at the moment, that they are based on figures for the


population that date back to 2000, and it is in the interests of basic


democratic fairness that we equalise the number of electors so that every


man and woman's vote has the same value. Given that the Leader of the


House seems to be in a generous mood, can I ask if we can have an


urgent debate on compensation for the victims of the concentric


scandal? After the number of parliamentary questions, I have


discovered information which confirms that in relation to


mandatory eerie considerations after the fishing expedition, nine out of


ten of those have been successful, which is just shocking.


Notwithstanding this, the average compensation is only ?48, which does


not even cover the cost of phone calls or postage of documents to


prove their innocence. Can the government do the right thing and


have a debate to bring this out in the open. It is the case with any


citizen who has grounds for claiming that they have suffered loss as a


result of maladministration by any part of government or any agency of


government has the right to go through the member of Parliament to


the parliamentary ombudsman and seek compensation, that is something I


have done under half of my own constituents at various times during


my time here. Though clearly what one cannot have is some sort of


blanket scheme that operates and awards public money irrespective of


the case. But I think the ombudsman may provide the route she is


seeking. On the 7th of December, the then presidential hopeful Donald


Trump called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US. On the 15th


of November I wrote to the Foreign Secretary to ask what


representations were being made in respect of the 2.7 million British


Muslims, some of whom may want to go today US. His response was shocking,


basically it is a matter for the US government. I fundamentally


disagree. This government has a responsibility to stand up and every


citizen in this land. When can we have a debate to make sure the


Foreign Secretary is held to account? It is the case that this


government in terms of freedom to travel, as on everything else, will


stand firm for the principle that citizens of the United Kingdom


should be treated on an equal basis regardless of what religion they


profess or what ethnic origin they may have come from. But it is a


truth in law that the United States, like every other nation state, has


the responsibility to determine for itself its rules on how people are


allowed to enter their territory, and I think it is important that we


now work alongside the elected president and his administration and


ensure that we have the best possible bilateral relationship that


works in the interest of all British citizens. Can I thank the Leader of


the House for his moving words, and could we have a debate about whether


Britain first should be described as a terrorist ordination and banned


from elections? That terrorist organisation. -- Britain First.. The


Home Office brings forward but they do so based on evidence.


There have been cases in the past where organisations which have been


prescribed have gone to the courts and successfully won a judicial


review to say that the evidence on which that action had been taken was


not sufficient, so I will make sure that her proposal is reported to my


right honourable friend the Home Secretary, but there has to be clear


evidence of terrorist involvement for the terrorist prescription to be


applied. Tory backbenchers rightly lamb basset the debt legacy left by


the Labour Party, and usually gets full agreement from ministers on the


front bench, so why is it then and yesterday's Autumn Statement,


paragraph 3.27 outlines a new guideline that the PFI projects have


announced? Can we have this explained, or even better a debate


on this? I will ask Treasury ministers to write to him on that.


It has already been mentioned that the government published a Northern


Powerhouse strategy report yesterday, but I cannot see in that


report any mention of either Cumbria or nuclear energy. Given that West


Cumbria is going to be putting the power into the Northern Powerhouse,


I would like to support the honourable member for Hull north to


request a debate so that the government can appreciate how much


all of the North of England has to offer, and why Cumbria must not be


an afterthought. I completely agree that Cumbria must not be an


afterthought, and I am confident that the leaders of the Northern


Powerhouse locally would make sure that the decisions that they take


work to the advantage of everybody living within that area of this


country. On nuclear power, I am aware of the importance of the


nuclear industry to her constituents, and I hope there would


be some common ground between her and this government because this


government has taken a difficult and controversial decision to go ahead


with a new generation of nuclear power stations, which I think is


something generally supported by members on all sides. Everyday


around 2200 babies are born in the UK, including my new granddaughter


who was born in Glasgow yesterday. Can we please have a debate on


government time about the impact of the measures announced in the Autumn


Statement on new families, and how we can support all of them at this


joyful but often vulnerable time? Can I first of all congratulate the


honourable lady, or perhaps her daughter or daughter-in-law, and use


child is a source of joy for any family. On the point she mentions, I


suspect we're going to have a number of opportunities to debate the


various questions that arise out of the Autumn Statement, as


well as different departments affected by the announcements. I


would say to her as I said earlier, if she looks at the distributional


analysis of the Autumn Statement, she finds that it works modestly,


yes, but to the benefit of all income groups in society, except the


very richest, and I hope she would also agree that all families benefit


more than anything else from having parents in work and able to work.


The record numbers of people we have in employment is what is helping to


drive the reduction we have seen in the number of children who are


living in workless households and the introduction of universal credit


means people, including mothers of young children, who take on


part-time work, will still always find that works makes them better


off than staying on benefits. Can I thank all the members about the kind


words about Jo Cox. Yesterday the Chancellor announced infrastructure


funding for broadband in rural areas. This is a problem for my


constituents and people who work in dockyards. Can the government debate


on how it plans to improve speeds for all areas? The additional money


that the Chancellor announced yesterday to provide for


strategic infrastructure investment is additional to the current


programme of connecting people to high-speed broadband. That current


work will continue, and what was announced yesterday is additional to


that. Can I also thank the Leader of the House for his words about our


colleague Jo Cox. Can I also paid tribute to her incredible staff, who


have shown such as strength of character throughout this period, I


know she would be incredibly proud of what they achieved in her


absence. In 2012, the government axed careers advice, and put money


into a website, which collapsed in October, as it lost control of what


it could do. Can we have a statement from the government on how this


waste of taxpayer money was allowed to happen? Can I associate myself


with her tribute to Jo Cox's staff, and I know she herself had to


undertake a number of constituency duties between her murder and the


recent by-election, so she will have had personal knowledge of how hard


her staff have worked. On the point she raised, I am not aware of the


details of the case, that it sounds to me possibly something that may be


a serious use of -- misuse of public money, and you may want to have a


word with the chair of the Public Accounts Committee because that


probably would be the appropriate parliamentary means to investigate


this further. Can I also associate myself with the tributes made to our


colleague Jo Cox. Yesterday we heard a lot from the Chancellor about


increasing productivity, but can we have a statement on increasing


ministerial productivity? I refer to the government's review of


employment tribunal fees, which have been sitting on his desk for over a


year now, and he appears not to have even read it. Thousands of people


are being denied access to justice, but this report has not been acted


upon. When will something happen? I will have a word with the relevant


minister, I cannot promise the reply will be the one he wishes for, but


let's get the relevant Minister to write to him, so he can see what


current thinking is. And we have a ministerial statement addressing the


rear but dramatic issue experienced by my constituent, a transgendered


woman, having reached the militarily gen seeking her pension, her case is


with the Tribunal service, having undergone surgery when gender


realignment certificates were not possible. Her passport and driving


licence recognise her female service, but the government is


rooting through an upsetting process to prove she is living as a woman.


There will be a backbench debate on transgender equality that may give


him the opportunity to raise this particular case. If he is having any


problems himself in corresponding with government departments, I am


always ready to help any member get a prompt reply. Yesterday I asked


the Prime Minister how she could justify the scrapping of the May


be's heavy duty service charge with no replacement. The Prime Minister


replied that she did not recognise the situation I described. But the


truth is that it is the case that at the end of 2018, this missile will


be scrapped and there will be no replacement and this is against the


advice of the Navy. Can we have a debate about naval defence in the


Prime Minister's first opportunity. The Ministry of Defence, while it


has a significant budget and quite old terms, does still have to take


difficult decisions, including decisions at times to phase out and


to replace particular weapon systems or weapon platforms. I will make


sure that defence ministers are aware of the honourable gentleman's


concerns. This subject might be an appropriate backbench debate or


something and you may wish to raise on the adjournment. On November the


7th, in a debate in Westminster Hall on the future of shipbuilding, the


honourable member for West Worcestershire, who is defence


procurement minister said, the National shipbuilding strategy will


report by the Autumn Statement. The Autumn Statement was yesterday and


we still haven't seen the strategy. Can the Beta is sure that the


Secretary of State for Defence comes to this chamber and makes a


statement on exactly what is happening to the national


shipbuilding strategy? I had noticed that this matter was raised


yesterday, so I did check out the current position with the Ministry


of Defence this morning. My understanding is that Sir John


Parker has now submitted his independent report and did so just


before the Autumn Statement. That is being considered by ministers.


Defence ministers do intend to publish his report soon, and they


will then be providing a more considered response to the detail of


his report at a later date. The chaotic sustainability and


transformation plan, warp commonly known as the slash, trash and


privatised programme, is being compounded by reports that our


General Hospital is to be caused, marriage is unmoved. If we can't


have a debate on this in government time, can we have a debate on the


report of the health select committee to demonstrate how the


government is bamboozling the public with false claims of money to the


NHS that it isn't actually providing? I simply don't agree with


his final comments. The government has provided ?10 billion to the NHS


over the period of the current five-year plan, plus the preceding


financial year. And in giving evidence to the health select


committee, the chief executive of the National Health Service in


England said that the government had provided the upfront funding that he


was seeking. When it comes to the STPs. The important thing is they


are determined locally. They are not being imposed from on high. He will


also find that the health of oversight committee of his local


authority has the right to challenge proposals presented under a STP, and


if they feel sufficiently strongly, to revert that to the Secretary of


State for a second look. But it is important, not just that the


government, as it is doing, spends more money on the National Health


Service, but the National Health Service looks at the way in which it


is operating, so that it is getting the best possible value of their


patients out of every penny that is being spent. An important tenet of


the better together campaign was that the people of Scotland should


vote no to Scottish independence in order to protect their pensions.


Yesterday, the Chancellor suggested that the triple lock may be set to


go. Can we have a debate in government time on the future of


state pensions, to discuss the prospect of future cuts and this


potential betrayal to the people of Scotland? The Chancellor was very


clear yesterday that the triple lock is going to remain in place for the


duration of this government's lifetime. At the next general


election in 2020, it will be for all political parties to put forward


what ever proposals they wish on pensions, as anything else. The


biggest threat to the well-being of pensioners in Scotland would come


from a vote for separation, which would plunge Scotland into the kind


of economic instability where pensioners and others relying on


fixed incomes are likely to lose out heavily. People living close to


recreational airfields don't have the same protection from noise and


nuisance that people living close to similar recreational activities that


stay in the ground have. In a statement from the Department for


Communities and Local Government on this issue, its impact on local


people and what they're going to do about it? I refer him to the


questions next Monday and hope he is lucky in that tracked in your eye,


Mr Speaker. Dee Valley water is valued independent business in North


East Wales, supply water to Wrexham in Chester. Its independence and


many jobs are threatened by the takeover by Southern Trent. If local


decision-making is important, what say you local people in my area have


about yourselves and the water that they drink? Clearly, this is a


commercial decision for the two companies concerned, and while I


understand the concerns he has expressed, I don't know the details,


there may be a question in mind that a larger company would be able to


provide more capital investment for his area, so people might be able to


benefit. I suggest to him this is probably a suitable subject for an


adjournment debate. The new administration has been quick to


jettison just about every aspect of the predecessor, so when will we get


rid of the farcical procedures, on Monday night, nobody had a clue what


was going on. There were no divisions, there were no English


Casper English laws. Surely he agrees the answer is not this mess


left him by his predecessor? I am absolutely confident that the teller


knew what was going on at all times, and if last Monday's events raised


any concern about the technical operation of the procedures, then as


the honourable gentleman knows, I am currently carrying out a review of


those procedures, embodied in standing orders, and he's welcome to


submit evidence to me. But the basic principle remains right, that where


legislation affects only England, and that matter is devolved to the


Scottish Parliament in Scotland, Ben English members here should exercise


a veto upon whether that legislation passes or not. I am sure you were


watching avidly last Sunday as Andy Murray one the ATP world tour 's


finals and retained his position as the world's number one tennis player


in the singles, joining his brother, who is number one player in the


doubles. These brothers are the pride of Dunblane. I wonder if we


can have a debate on the legacy to tennis and the wider benefit that


sporting excellence can have in terms of getting the next generation


of sporting heroes? I did indeed watch both Andy and to meet several


times last week, and the honourable gentleman will not be surprised to


know that I bellowed on regular occasions in their support, albeit


in an entirely orderly manner. I am very happy to add my congratulations


to both Andy and Jamie Murray and while I can see people of Dunblane


and Scotland will take a special pride in their achievement, I think


that that pride is shared by everybody else in all parts of the


UK. I hope that the tennis authorities will use this


achievement as the springboard to intensify their efforts to improve


the opportunities available through, both the grassroots tennis and


through coaching schemes for the most able players, so we produce


eight new generation of tennis players, both men and women, to


follow in their footsteps. If the honourable gentleman won the debate


on the matter, I can't take part, but if he wants an adjournment


debate on the matter, I am saying he might secure it. This flawed


neoclassical theoretical assumptions, combined with problems,


are enshrined in the model of the UK economy used by both the Treasury


and other bodies, so I would call into question how independent that


makes the OBR. When can we have a debate on this? It is up to the OBR


to decide how it meets its own forecasts, and the assumptions on


which it makes them. They do publish with their report a statement of the


various assumptions they make, but if he isn't happy with the OBR,


there is a plethora of other independent forecasts, using


methodologies that defer to a great or lesser extent. I think this is


the question. Can I join others in ensuring our thoughts and prayers


are with Jo Cox's family and her staff. As you predicted yesterday,


following my point of order, I do wish to push the Leader of the How


is just a little further in terms of the National shipbuilding strategy.


Can he ensure and feedback to ministers that many members want to


debate the strategy and the government response to it. It is an


important industry and it needs topped up. Those of us who represent


shipyards, we'd be obliged if the Leader would be amenable to that. I


do understand the importance of the industry to his constituency, as in


all parts of the UK. The position is, as described it earlier. The


first thing the house will want is to see Sir John Parker's report and


members to bomb views on that. But I will certainly be leader colleagues


in defence the importers that he and other honourable members attached to


this matter. Point of order, Mr Alex Salmond. During business questions,


in answer to the right Honourable member for Rhondda, the Leader of


the Coasting to suggest there was? Over with their resolution would


come forward on the second reading of the boundaries Bill but this has


class overwhelmingly last Friday. You will remember that there was one


example in the last parliament with this happens, I wasn't viewed at the


time. Due to the incoherence of the Coalition Government


Download Subtitles