Commons Business Questions House of Commons

our own industry. It has to be on a fair basis. There are special cases

around British Steel and 98% of the bridge -ish -- this deal we purchase

is British Steel. Urgent question, Mr Bernard Jenkin. I am most

grateful to ask the Prime Minister if he will ask for an enquiry to be

launched on whether discussions between the trade unions and the

Labour Party on amendments of the trade union Beale -- trade union

bill constitute a breach of the conduct. The Cabinet Office has

advised me that there is no breach and nothing for the priming is to's

adviser on ministerial interest to investigate. As is customary at such

times, ministers have had regular discussions with Jago ministers to

discuss possible... On the basis of discussions yesterday evening, I can

reassure my honourable friend that we are well on our way to ensuring

all of our manifesto commitments. Reforms to the role of the

acidification of this, a tightening up of rules around the location

time, and introduction of a transparent opt in process and a

tightening up of intimidation of non-striking members. The question

of compulsory opt in to trade union funds was one of the most

contentious, especially in the Lords. The Lords referred it to a

special committee. Following the select committee's report, the House

of Lords voted by a large majority to accept an amendment to restrict

the opt in to new members and exclude current trade union members.

My honourable friend will not be surprised to learn that I speak to

trade unions and the secretary of the TUC regularly. Trade union

support for the campaign to remain in the European Union is not new and

should not come aces -- as a surprise to anybody. The TUC

declared its support in February, eg you be -- DNB did the same in

February, unite in March and Unison in April. We all remember the Prime

Minister for telling that the next scandal would be a lobbying scandal

and had -- here it is. Trade union members have been complaining that

have been unable to campaign for the in... The result of this amendment

means that a 19-year-old who has just started a job and is a member

of a trade union will now never be asked if he wants his political fund

subscriptions to be taken out of his pay packet. The Prime Minister told

the House of Commons on the 15th of July last year, there is a very

simple principle here. Giving money to a party should be an act of free

will, money should not be taken out of pay packets without them being

told properly about it. He likened it to mis-selling. The minister in

the Other Place described the Labour's amendment, which the

Government has accepted, as a wrecking amendment on the 16th of

March this year. Yesterday, the Minister's concession was wholly

unexpected and my right honourable friend for Grantham and Stanford

announced his decision to abandon the opposition to the bill. It is

now being reported that these unexpected concessions are linked to

the question of a ?1.7 million donation that trade unions make from

their political funds, which are now much larger than they would have

been, to the Labour remain campaign. Until very recently, the honourable

gentleman for Hull West and hassle, was trying to raise ?75,000 for the

loons and badges. Now they are getting ?1.7 million. It has been

confirmed to me through more than two independent sources that number

ten instructed these concessions to be made after the discussions with

trade union representatives. This being true would amend -- add to the

sale of Government policy for cash and political favours. Lest there be

any doubt about the propriety -- the impropriety of this deal, the leader

of Her Majesty's opposition should ask themselves this question -- what

would they be saying if this Government had altered the bill in

order to give money to the Conservative Party or to the

Conservative Party's remain campaign? My honourable friend

should ask himself this question. What would be the reaction if the

Labour Government had changed a bill to favour the Labour's ability to

favour it self. This stinks as cash for questions and shows this

Government really is at the rotten heart of the European Union. The

seven principles of public life requires public office holders, and

I quote, to avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or

organisations that might try inappropriately to influence their

work. The ministerial code states that ministers must ensure that no

conflict arises or appears to arise between their public duties and

their private interests. In this matter, the Labour Party constitutes

one of their private interests. Will my right honourable friend the Prime

Minister instructed friend on parliamentary interest to launch

this investigation. If my honourable friend is right, he has nothing to

fear from such an investigation. Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I can

start by saying I have the greatest possible respect from the passion

and commitment which has lasted not just for years but for decades that

my honourable friend has brought to the cause which he is now advocating

with such vigour that we should leave the European Union. I have

nothing but total respect for that passion and commitment. So I just

want to gently correct him on a view points of fact, because he has been

focusing so much on the very important question that there are a

number of things that he's adjusted which are absolutely correct about

the way that the current mechanism for union members subscriptions to

the political fund works. The first point to make is to say that it is

not the case that somebody who has recently joined a trade union, to

whom there for the new requirement for an optimal not apply, is never

asked whether they want to pay into the political levy. Very far from

it. There is a long-standing legal requirement that they are offered an

opt out of that political levy and that that is something communicated

very clearly to them and it is not just a one-time thing. It is not

something they are offered when they join, it is something they can

exercise at any time and need to be reminded of on a regular basis. The

other thing to say to my honourable friend is that while estimates vary

from different unions, the overall estimate for trade union membership

is that roughly 13 to 14% of all members of a trade union joined in

the last year. That means that over the time of this Parliament, I'm not

going to suggest that all members of trade unions will have needed to opt

into the political fund, but a very substantial proportion will have.

The argument that was made, and this was not a point made... I'm afraid

he is also not correct to say this was an amendment made by Labour. It

was made by the honourable member, Lord Burns, someone that I know he

has great respect of, who is fiercely independent, and that

flowed out of a committee in which there was some this representation

of all parties. The amendment was very clearly inspired by Lord Burns

when he said that it was not reasonable to ask people who have

signed up to an arrangement in good faith to then have to you sign up

again through a different process simply because we have changed the

law later. I did not agree with that argument and nor did we in this

House, but as is often the case, when the House of Lords feels very,

very strongly on an issue, there is a very large majority against the

Government's position. When an independent member of the House of

Lords has moved an amendment which has secured support not just from

the official opposition, not just from the Liberal Democrats, but from

a huge number of crossbenchers and not just from crossbenchers, but

from some very significant members of our own party, and I would simply

urge him to look at the people who both spoke in the debate and voted

or assertively chose not to vote in support of the garment's position.

They include not just the noble lord Cormack and the noble lord boughs,

they also include the noble Lord Forsyth, who supports the same

campaign in the European Union that he supported and who both privately

and publicly said that he thought it was a profound error for us to

pursue a compulsory opt in for all existing members.

Finally, Mr Speak, my honourable friend suggested that it is

inappropriate, of course, for Government to do anything for

private interests, in terms of making changes to legislation,

further private interests. Of course, he is right. It is not right

and not neven the passion of the moment is it fair to categorise the

Government's support, the official policy of Her Majesty's Government.

We support the proposition that the United Kingdom should remain a

member of the European Union. He disagrees, but it is not a private

interest, it is Government policy. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker and

it is very good to have this further opportunity to reemphasise our

implacable opposition to the trade union bill it is entirely

unnecessary. It is bad for workers and it is also bad for businesses.

And, as the minister said, the Lord set up a cross-party committee, to

look at the trade union and party political funding and that committee

came up with a series of Salisbury convention compliance

recommendations, which were voted for by a majority of peers from

parties. I wonder if the minister can confirm he met with Lord Burns,

who made clear the strength of clearing on the other matter. Can he

confirm that he has received overwhelming reputations from all

quarters, including the trade unions, which by the way, is hardly

surprising, give this is the trade union bill that he should receive

reputations from the unions. Is it not the case that all these various

reputations made clear that the proposals on political funding were

unworkable and breached the long established convention that major

changes to the funding a political party should only happen by

agreement. Now, it would appear, at least partially, that the minister

listened. Well done. But he should have listened earlier and he

#23450eds to keep listening, actual limit can I ask him now to have a

few more meetings with trade unions, who have made entourly reasonable

proposals on E balloting and facility time which remain in the

bill. There is still time for him to think again.

Mr Speaker, I can confirm what the honourable gentleman has said, which

is earlier this week that I did hold a meeting, at my request, with the

noble Lord Burn, in which I discussed with him an amendment we

put down and we were intending to move to this bill. That amendment

was one which would still have aapplied the compulsory option to

existing members of trade unions, but would have built in a longer

period of transition for trade unions to implement this and would

have changed the agraments for renewal of their opt-in to align wit

the political ballots that need to take place every ten years. I hoped

that was a compromise that the noble Lord Burns would feel, if not

enthusiastic about, at least able to indicate that he would not actively

oppose when the bill went back to the Upper House in the next stage of

ping-pong. And the nobble Lord Burns, who is a man I have huge

admiration and liking, was very, very clear to me that he felt that

was not an exception able compromise, that not just would he

not support it, he would actively the reinstatement of his amendment.

He made clear his judgment was not so much a political one or, and

certainly not inspired by questions around the balance of party funding,

it was simply based on his experience in the financial services

industry, which is where he said that it is very, very unfair to ask

people to sign up to new things when they have already expressed an

opinion on that very same question by a means which was previously

legal. He said that applied in this case and he thought that it was

wrong and that he could not support it.

We then reflected on Lord Burns' position and moved the amendments

that we passed last night. As for the honourable member's comments

about the rest of the bill, I just have to be very, very clear with him

and with honourable members on his side, this bill is going to

dramatically improve the state of employment relations and the state

of industrial action. At the moment a trade union, like various

education trade unions, can hold a strike three years after a ballot

has been passed with the turnout of less than 20% of their members and

still close over 1,000 colleges. That is currently legal. When the

bill, that with the support of my honourable friend, we are passing in

this House, and I anticipate the nobble Lords will pass next week,

when that achieves royal consent it will not be possible to inflict on

hard-working parents the closure of a school in the middle of a week on

the basis of a tiny turnout that would secure -- that was secured

several years ago. That is why I am proud of this bill. That is why I

think my honourable friend can be proud of this bill. We have secured

our manifesto commitments for all working people. The

THE SPEAKER: The minister has been diverted from the path of procedure

vert cho as a result of the cheeky enquiries of the opposition front

bench. We cannot now have a third reading on the trade union bill and

must focus narrowly instead upon the matter of the urgent question, which

I know will be done faithfully by Lord Liam Fox. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. In making this change in the trade union bill and following

on from our abavendment of our manifesto commitments on immigration

by not rethe goshiating freedom of movement, can he tell us of the

commitments he referred, which must not be abandoned in terms of trying

to seek a vote. Mr Speaker, your cautionary tone is ringing in my

ears. So, I will answer my Right Honourable friend's question by

narrowly focussing on the measures in this bill, which demonstrate, I

believe, as I said at the start of my statement, that we had genuinely

secured everything that was in our manifesto. It is a point that came

up in my discussion with Lord Burns who knows a thing or two about

legislative drafting. He said he was confident having read and re-read

the resis words in our manifesto about the transparent opt-in for the

political fund. He was very, very clear that the amendment that he

moved and it was passed in the upper place fulfilled that manifesto

commitment in full. Not only that, that the further introduction of

opt-in to apply to existing members was not given cover by the Salisbury

convention and he would made it plain in the Upper House if we were

to try and restore that position. I mean no commitment of those who

wrote our manifesto because it is a wonderful document which will live

through the ages. Their wording was not so precisely established as to

ekoo our that additional application of the opt-in to existing members of

trade unions. Thank you, Mr Speaker and we want to reiterate on these

benches our complete opposition to the trade union bill. Can the

minister confirm that it would be strange for a piece of legislation

that affects six million workers for a Government not to consult with

bodies that represent those six million workers? Can he also confirm

that the Government were considering concessions as far as as the 26th

January, when a memorandum in his name was leaked to many media

outlets? What onof going discussions is he having with devolved

institutions who have a major problem with this bill and the time

and further issues? Thank you, Mr Speaker. The honourable gentleman

made a valuable contribution to our deliberations at all stages, perhaps

especially in committee. He was vocal and incisive in his commitment

of almost every measure in the bill. Of course he is right. We don't just

hold discussions with institutions in society about whom we are

legislating. I think it would be a little unfair if we didn't. We

invited them to give evidence to the committee. We had one of the most

terrifying sightsvy seen in long time, which is the General Secretary

of Unite, the General of GMB and of the TUC, all sitting in a row,

giving evidence to that committee. So, of course it was right to do

that. He's also right that we consulted with a devolved

administration. I have had a number of conversations on phone and

devolved Governments who have expressed concern about whether all

the provisions in the bill should properly apply to them, although we

are confident that all the provisions in the bill relate to

observed matters and therefore apply to everyone and every trade union in

the United Kingdom. I chaired the trade union bill and committee. If I

am not going to comment on the trade union bill, was I can made a

constitutional point? There would be concern if, as part of the ping-pong

process, any Government, at any time made concessions on a bill, as a

result of something which had nothing to do with that bill.

My honourable friend is an honourable man and I am sure he can

confirm that no Government of which he was a part would ever do that.

Mr Speaker, I think I have expressed -- explained clearly what the

process was. I speak for myself in simply saying when I met the

immovable force of the Lord Burns, I decided that maybe discretion was

the better part of valour. That's not to say that Government ministers

don't have discussions on all sorts of issues with all sorts of people

in society. And it is the Government's policy to

support the Remain Remain campaign. The General Secretary of TUC is a

member and has been for months and the trade unionsvy have listed have

made their positions clear, long before this bill came back to this

House or was considered in connection with the opt-in the Upper

House. So, I just gently say to my honourable and Right Honourable

friends that not every compromise is a conspiracy.

THE SPEAKER: Mr Denis Skipper. -- Ski in, ner.

Now that the Government are calling to this barmy idea which has been

propagated this morning from the right-wing of the Tory Party, now

that the Government has seemingly prepared to give way on different

subjects, can I ask him, what is the price for dropping this lousy,

rotten trade union bill at? -- all together?

Mr Speaker, it is the goal of my life to give pleasure to the

honourable gentleman. I have to, I am afraid, I have to

tell him that there is no price, because we believe in this bill, we

believe in our manifesto. And we are well on the way to delivering it.

I hope the minister will understand that when we read from a senior

political journalist in the Telegraph the following words, "Last

night a union source said bosses had always been clear it would be

difficult to spend significant amounts on the campaign to keep

Britain in the Union, whilst fighting against the trade union

bill, but they revealed that unions will now step up their campaigning

and funding efforts in light of the concessions." He can well understand

why people are asking these questions. Can he confirm right now

that this journalist is absolutely wrong? Her sources are incorrect and

no such trade took place? Mr Speaker, I am afraid I am going

to have to repeat what I have already said, which is there is a

natural process towards the end oh of a parliamentary session, where

concessions are made on bills in order to secure their timely

passage. What trade unions decide to do about their long-standing

commitment to back the remain campaign is entirely a matter for

them. I think this is a very rare occurrence for the Government to

actually listen to the Members of Parliament, both in the Upper House

and here. And I welcome that. That is the right thing to do. And it is

right that they should meet with trade unions. Of course they should.

This legislation is an attack on trade unions and does nothing for

employer relations whatsoever. It is a wrecking piece of legislation and

any concessions, at all, can only improve this bill and I hope we

could see more in the short time left to it.

Mr Speaker, the honourable lady is far too kind to me. I didn't want to

listen at all. I simply acknowledged that when you have a -- an array of

forces which includes most of the crossbench, all of the Liberal

Democrat party, all of the Labour Party and some very influential

Conservative peers, when you have that, neophytes like me in this game

perhaps need to admit defeat. It is true that the noble lord, Lord

Cormack, is a very special parliamentarian. As the grandson of

a trade union shop steward who went on to become a Conservative trade

unionist, I can say that has been opposition on this side of the House

and can I thank him for listening to that. The debate can family

Conservative manifesto piece to improve situations. I thank my

honourable friend and his father, who did not just make it to the

Other Place but made it into the Cabinet and was a very significant

performer in the area of employment law and industrial relations, so we

have much to learn from his work, and he is right about that. I hope

it is not breaking a confidence to say that there are other members of

this House with whom I've had conversations about the specific

provision who were deeply concerned about them and they do include among

them, I don't think I should mention their names, they include among them

leading supporters of those in the campaign to leave the European

Union. Can there be any psychological explanation why so

many Tory MPs have such a loathing of trade unions? I do not recognise

that loathing and I certainly don't feel it myself. Can I join with my

honourable friend from Worcester to say firstly congratulations to the

minister in the way that he has handled this bill but also to ask

him, again, if it is not the case that he has had conversations with

many people on all sides of the House, including this side of the

House, both here and in the Other Place about their concerns and that

many of those concerns have been addressed without any contributions

being made at all to us? I can confirm that and none more important

than my honourable friend who had some very serious concerns which he

did exactly the right thing, you came to see me privately about them

as we were deliberating in this House, he laid an amendment at

reports state which he then did not move because I gave him reassurance

we would look closely at it as the Bill progressed and while he was not

here, I mentioned specifically yesterday that he had been hugely

influential in our decision ultimately not to press ahead with

the decision to remove the check arrangement from trade unions the

public sector. Can I declare an interest as someone who has been in

the following level -- for an levy since 1969, and the former head of

the trade union. The trade unions are clear. They do not want this

bill at all. Even Winston Churchill spoke against what they are trying

to do and what ever gossip people are hearing, there is no doubt that

the trade unions vote would be Labour Party's remain campaign

because they realise that the right-wing reactionaries who would

deregulate this nation would be bad for employers -- employees. I think

the honourable gentleman's words speak for themselves and they are

very helpful. It is a shabby political episode when the

Government has been caught violating trade union legislation to sit

persuade the trade unions to come on board with a campaign to stay in the

European Union. Isn't it now clear that the Government, big business,

the BBC and now the trade unions are all hanging up on British people to

try to persuade them to stay in the European Union? Mr Speaker, nothing

pains me more than to have clearly angered my own furry friend -- by

honorary friend because I have extreme liking for him. I always

dropped everything to go to his constituency because he is a great

man but I do reject what he has said. I think perhaps in this case

he is able the bit blinded by his passion for the issue and I would

simply point to him that all he needs to do is to look at the front

pages and the editorial pages of every single newspaper that is

traditionally seen as a Conservative supporting newspaper to see that

there is a balance of opinion in this debate. His arguments are being

well represented. Given the impact this bill will have on workers

rights across the whole of the United Kingdom, can I ask the

minister what discussions he had with the devolved administrations

since the Lords amendments? I haven't yet had that pleasure but I

anticipate it. Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a very simple issue which

the Minister could give a straightforward answer to. The

allegation is that the trade union bill was watered down for the

benefit of the trade unions on the understanding that they would then

make a considerable donation to the campaign to stay in the European

Union. Can the Minister give us, with the authority of the dispatch

box, a clear denial that any such discussion took place and that in no

way whatsoever, no discussions with ministers or officials, in no way

what any of the watering down of the trade union Bill done with any

mention of any funding for the U remain campaign for the trade

unions? It is very simple to deny it if it is not true. Mr Speaker, I

aspire to be as straightforward as my honourable friend. I have been

very clear. We went through a process of negotiation, not just

with Shadow ministers but with members of other parties and in the

Other House and we have secured a package, which I have to say I do

not believe any honourable member on my side of the House would have

predicted when we introduced this bill that we would have secured as

much of it as swiftly and as easily as we have, because it was probably

the most politically controversial bill in our original Queen 's

speech. As for decisions by the trade unions to back the campaign

for which they have already declared, long before's -- long

before yesterday's considerations of the Bill, I think the honourable

gentleman spoke very clearly when he said they would support this

campaign full heartedly and full throated Lee because they believe it

is in the interests of their members to do so. I do not think there is

anything so grubby as a deal but if an agreement was reached can I

congratulate the opposition Chief Whip on showing how this can be

done? Can I ask him to follow the leadership of the trade unions and

contact their members to make the case for year up and the terrible

threats for growth if we leave a single market of 500 million

consumers? Mr Speaker, I'm not sure if you will that I'm likely answer

to that question as directly relevant to the question but I will

venture until you stop me. I will venture that small companies have

beefs about the European Union, so do I, but ultimately they feel it is

in our interest to stay will stop I feel all of us should be doing what

we can do to encourage people that we represent to see that their

interests are best protected by staying in. The person who asked

this question speaks passionately on behalf of of his own union which is

the general and municipal union of a Brexit bigots. It is extraordinary

that he asks for the advisor on ministerial interest to be woken up

from his slumber. He has been virtually unemployed since he was

appointed when the previous holder of that office resigned, believing

that he should have been called in to investigate the conduct of the

Member for North Somerset who -- North Somerset who gained absolution

by resignation. As the person asking this question, why isn't he asking

for an enquiry into the two ministers who gave ?3 million to

Kids Company in the face of advice from their civil servants three days

before it collapsed? It is because the office of the advisor had been

degraded and politicised. Calm down. Calm. For the benefit of yoga -- the

benefit of yoga, even for ministers, should not be underestimated. I want

to talk about a pause for order. The reason I didn't intervene when a

word was used is because I believe it to be a matter of taste. There

was no imputation of dishonour. I mean this in no unkind spirit but

the honourable member for Harwich and North Essex and other

like-minded souls are perfectly capable of looking after themselves

and their honour has not been impugned in any way. That is why the

remark stands. The Minister must of course reply. Mr Speaker, there are

no bigots on this side of the House, least of all my honourable

disavowing to disagree with me on this subject. The honourable

gentleman does himself absolutely no credit by hurling that kind of

Playschool abuse across this chamber. He is a disgrace, the

comment was a disgrace and he should withdraw it. The Minister is

entitled to his view and I hope the House won't take offence if I say I

will judge if a comment should be withdrawn. I think we should leave

it there. If I were to intervene on grounds of order every time a

question were not answered nothing else would ever happen in the

chamber. I must confess, Mr Speaker, I must find myself amused by this

question of urgency. I am restating yet again my absolute opposition to

this bill. Can the Minister confirm that trade unions remain a part of

civil society and they have an absolute right to make

representations on the half of them and the two Government irrespective

of what right-wing members of his own backbenchers might wish? Of

course I can confirm that but I have to say to the honourable gentleman

that frankly the position governing strike action the position governing

the proper regulation of trade union activities with regards to finances

and membership, the position regarding picketing and intimidation

of non-striking workers, all of those were frankly not acceptable

until this bill was introduced to this House and remain not acceptable

until this bill has secured Royal assent. Of course I accept that

trade unions have an important role in society but they needed this

reform, they will benefit from this reform and I want to put on my

record -- on record my gratitude to all members on my side, not least

the honourable member who has made comments on this bill, their support

of this bill. As today is International Workers Memorial Day,

I think it says that they poignant reminder as to why we need good and

strong trade unions in our society. I think it's also right that we have

the trade union movement opposed to many of the measures contained

within this bill which is an attack on how they operate on behalf of

their members. In terms of the substantive point of the urgent

question today, of course the trade union Bill is not yet legislation.

It hasn't been connected, so surely -- it hasn't been an active, so

surely the fact that the Labour affiliated trade union has decided

to donate some of its money, it's Labour affiliated political fund, to

a Labour supported campaign is perfectly within the law? Mr

Speaker, he is correct. I am extremely grateful to the Minister

and all colleagues. We come now to the business question.

Points of order have really come after statements, I would prefer...

The honourable gentleman has had a good run. He should be patient. Aam

sure his point of -- I am sure his point of order can be heard later.

Mr Speaker, will the lead ore of the House give us the forthcoming

business? So, Mr Speaker, on Monday 2nd May

the House is not sitting. It is the Mayday bank hole dasmt Tuesday 3rd

we will sit Monday hours, not Tuesday hours, when we will debate a

motion to approve a ways and means resolution to the Housing Bill,

followed by considerations and amendments of the planning bill. On

the 4th May, an Opposition Day Debate. That will be followed by a

motion relating to education funding in London. A subject determined by

the backbench committee. Thursday 5th, there'll be a debate on

contributions of faith sector to local communities. Friday 6th May,

the House is not sitting. The provisional business for the

following week, commencing Monday 9th May, will include on the Monday

a debate on the motion of Government departments outside London and the

subject of this debate determined by the Backbench Business Committee,

followed by consideration of Lords' amendments. I should like to inform

the House that the business in Westminster Hall will be a debate on

an e-petition relating to the Government's referendum leaflet. Mr

Speaker, Ed Balls, do we actually, Mr Speaker, have a Government at

all? They are all over the place. We all thought the referendum was a

simple question of EU in or out? This week it got much more

complicated as we learnt it is all about the ECHR in or out as well. So

the Home Secretary is an in-out, but the hostage-taker is an out-in and

the Chancellor is an in-in, along with the Attorney General and the

Solicitor-General, but the lead ore the House is an out-out. As for me,

I am out for in. Mr Speaker, the Health Secretary tells us he's in

his last big job in politics. I hear with an impending reshuffle several

ministers have been scouring the job market. I heard rumours of

Government postings to overseas territories being planned.

Boris is off to cultivate his that polyian complex and for the Health

Secretary there is the island known as "inaccessible island" which is

probably where the junior doctors want to send him anyway. 33-1 to be

the next chancellor of the Exchequer. On this day in 1789

Fletcher Citian mutinied on the bounty. He ended up on an island

9,000 miles away from here. I can imagine the leader of the House as

the governor of Pitcane, dressed in his white socks and sandals, Lording

it over the inhabitants, all 56 of them. If he wants I can put in a

word with the Prime Minister for him because the Prime Minister is trying

to advance my career, I see. Can we, Mr Speaker, have a debate on

irresponsible politics? I suspect the leader may never have heard of

Avon Jones, but he tweeted, I think we should have a protest where

thousands of us have send e-mails with the words bomb, Iran... He may

be a crank but he's the Plaid Cymru condedate for Police and Crime

Commissioner in North Wales. Can we have a statement from the Home

Secretary on the worrying break down of the E border systems on 13th and

14th June last year? We need to know, have there been other break

downs? Were full index warnings checked? Why did the Home Secretary

cover this up for so long? The leader of the House says we should

leave the EU so we can control our borders. Surely the lesson is the

greatest threat to our border is frankly Tory income I pi tense. The

leader said we should -- incompetence. As I walked into

Parliament this morning the police were moving two homeless people on

who had been sleeping on the doorstep of this parliamentary

palace for the last week. Under the Tories, rough sleeping has doubled

and funding for those who are sleeping rough has halved. Now, we

believe this bill will make the housing crisis in London even worse.

Will this Government, at least ensure for heavens sake that for

every single social housing unit sold off another is built in its

place? Mr Speaker, on 29th November, 2012, the Prime Minister said of the

Leveson Inquiry there would be a second part to investigate

wrongdoing in the press and the police. I listened to the Home

Secretary very carefully yesterday. She made an excellent statement. She

said we have always said a decision on lef son will be made when all the

investigations have been completed. That is not right, Mr Speaker. Up

until now the Government position, the Prime Minister's position has

always been that Leveson will start, but should start as soon as the

police and prosecuting authorities have finished their work. Surely one

of the many lessons we must learn from Hillsborough is when the

relationship between the police and the press gets too close it corrupts

them both. After all, some have argued that the law of liable means

there's no need nor a strong press regulator, but the 96 whose

reputation was dragged through the mud by the police, by the Sun and

the Spectator, couldn't sue for libel, could they? As passover ends

on Saturday, let me say again, as clearly as I can, anti-Semitism is

wrong, full stop, end of story. I am sick and tired of people trying to

explain it away and yes, I talking to you Ken Livingstone. Of course

the illegal settlements are wrong and the Palestinians deserve a

better deal. Rocket attacks are wrong and Hamas and Hezbollah must

acknowledge the right of Is hail to exist. I was taught -- of Israel to

exist. I was taught not to judge people by the colour of their skin,

their gender but their character. I also say it is no better when a

senior politician looks at the President of the United States and

only sees the colour of his skin and his part Kenyan ancestry, or when

the Tory candidate for Mayor of London runs a racially-charged

campaign against his Labour opponent. It is irresponsible. I off

fendss the decency -- it off fends the decency of the British people. I

say racism and racial peg disare not welcome in our political parties.

I will come back and I share most of the sentiments just raised let me

start by wishing you and the Shadow Minister a happyEd Balls day. I

never thought they would miss him as much as they would. He didn't talk

about all over the place policies. That is what the Labour Party's

position is on this. They don't want prisoners to have the vote. They

don't want to change our human rights laws. They ought to be smrt

enough to know those two position -- smart enough to know those two

positions are income pat tibl. He raised the subject of big jobs in

Government. We will remind the gentleman opposite, he does not see

his job as the last in Government, as the Prime Minister reminded him

yesterday. He talked about jobs for the future. I suspect the odds on

him becoming the speaker of this House are longer than the odds of me

becoming the manager of Liverpool Football Club. On that subject, can

I say a couple of things? I served when we were in opposition as shadow

member for Liverpool. I have enormous regard for that city, its

people and resilience. I would pay a tribute to all of the Hillsborough

families and all the people in Liverpool who supported them through

their long years of struggle. They, this week, achieved justice. I would

like to pay a trib boo to the member for Lee, who I thought was -- a trib

boo to the member for Lee, he deserves credit for what he's done.

The honourable gentleman talked about LevesonII. We will not move

forward until the cases are complete. That is the right thing to

do. We will continue to stick to that position.

He made the point about Mr Jones - yes I know who he is. The views he

expressed are objectionable. It is my hope in that part of North Wales

he is not elected as police and crimes commissioner. On the borders

issue I would remind him when Labour were in power the e-Borders

programme was supported to arrive and be put into effect. It didn't

happen because they failed to deliver the programme. When they

talk to us about what we have done in Government, they were in power

for 13 years. They started by dismantling our exit check borders

and they failed to put in place an alternative. Mr Speaker, he talked

about homelessness. Let me remind him of his party's record. They

built fewer council Houses than we did in office. Let me talk about

anti-Semitism. He has been a voice of reason and common sense. He

deserves credit for that. I wish all his colleagues saw things the same

way. He is right to talk about Ken Livingstone. His matters suggest

they were not anti-accept mettic, they were disgraceful. I do not

understand as many Labour MPs do not understand how Ken Livingstone is

still today a member of the Labour Party. He should be suspended from

the Labour Party for the things that he said.

But I also think there's some any evety on those benches, a member

said on the Today Programme she regarded the events as trial via

Twitter. She clearly does not fully

understand the gravity of the situation. Mr Speaker, despite the

wise words of the shadow leader, and I disagree what he said about my

honourable friend for Uxbridge, he nonetheless makes a powerful point.

He is a beacon of sense in this party. Where is the sense on the

rest of his benches of what is a deeply, deeply serious matter?

A number of my constituents have been the victims of who appears to

be a financial scam. The police have referred them to action fraud. The

contact they have had with Action Fraud is minimal. And they are very

dissatisfied. Could the leader arrange for a debate on the work of

Action Fraud? Well, Mr Speaker, my honourable

friend makes an important point. We are aware across our society of a

range of different scams. Often it is vulnerable people in our society

who are the victims. I pay tribute to him for raiding this issue. I

would say the Secretary of State and the business department will be here

next week. I hope he will take advantage to make sure it is on his

radar as well. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can

I thank you for the business for next week. Forget aboutEd Balls --

about Ed Balls, but we remember all those killed in the workplace.

Remember the dead and fight for the living has been considered. The

trade union bill, that is very apt words for the business we are

considering. Will the Government just now not do it? Will it now do

the right thing when it comes to accepting uncompanied child refugees

in number of camps. Even the Daily Mail are calling for the Government

to accept these children. For the Daily Mail to say this, surely the

time has come for this, even this, the most callous of Governments to

reconsider its position and do the right thing? It has its chance, it

looks like on May 9th the amendment will come back to this House again.

Will the Government look at this positively and for the sake of this

country, for all the people, even the right-wing press, will it do the

right thing for these children? When I was growing up in Scotland, and we

sometimes got an announcement which would preview the programmes, it was

not for viewers in Scotland. I was sort of thing maybe we could

resurrect this and apply it to Prime Minister's Questions. For most of

the last two sessions it has been about English schools, not for

viewers in Scotland or most other parts of the UK. The leader of the

opposition can raise whateverish shoo shoe he wants. It is up to him

-- whatever issue he wants. The time has testimony coreview Prime

Minister's Questions to make it -- the time has come for a review of

Prime Minister's Questions. Maybe the Leader of the House could

support that call, Mr Speaker. Can we have a debate on the Government's

commitments on the spending on the Clyde shipyards? I remember only too

well during the independence referendum and some of the things

which were said and I remember a leaflet that went around, which was

designed by the Labour and the Tory alliance and a bit together, it was

separation kills shipyards. It is what they said. It was a neat

slogan. It was all with the union and doom and gloom for secured

independence. We know that for the nonsense it is. It is not

independence that is killing shipyards, it is the union who is

killing it slowly and painfully by administering these yards and

delaying the start of works T Scottish people feel duped. Can we

have a debate where the Government can explain what is going and an and

ensure we get this work started on time. Lastly, I am sure the House,

as leader of the House, has full access to the Prime Minister's

diary. Can he explain why there's no visit to Scotland from the Prime

Minister in advance of a Scottish election? It is probably the last

person that Ruth David son would like to see if she has division and

beating Labour into third place in Scotland. We would love to see him.

Every time he appears it is an extra 2% for the Scottish National Party.

Can he encourage the Prime Minister, even his good self to come to

Scotland. The more Tories in Scotland the better for the Scottish

National Party. Mr Speaker, as the Honourable

Speaker knows I have great regard for him as a parliamentary colleague

but I do think sometimes his rhetoric lets him down. The idea

when he describes this as the most callous of Government, we are

providing the second largest amount of aid to all the refugee camps

around Syria, doing as much as any nation in the world by the United

States to try to help the people affected. We are taking 20,000

people not from other European countries but from the refugee camps

where they are the most vulnerable. And when he talks about

unaccompanied children, we are talking unaccompanied children not

from other EU countries where they are safe, but from the camps where

they are safe. Surely that is the sensible, wise on the thoughtful and

considerate thing to do? It is not saying no, we won't assist. It is

providing assistance to those not able to make it to Europe and that

is a policy with resolutely stand-by. He talks about by

ministers questions and the discussion about education. I would

simply remind him that is the consequence of devolution. This is a

United Kingdom Parliament but it is true that in his constituency,

education matters are not a matter for him but for the Scottish

parliament. That is something we have debated over time, but the

reality is that it is a consequence of the Doully volution championship

-- devolution that he has championed over time. He talks about shipping.

He wants a debate and a chance to vote, he will soon have a chance to

vote on removing from Scotland one of the biggest defence facilities in

the United Kingdom, very moving jobs, and removing part of the

nation's defences and when he can explain his thought on that with

regards to Scotland, I will take him seriously. He talks about

conservatives in Scotland and I have been to Scotland since the start of

the election campaign and I am delighted to see the Conservatives

moving up in the polls, though I am sure there is no connection between

the two, and all of us on the side of the House believes we have the

best leader in Scotland and we believe she will play a crucial part

in its affairs over the coming years as people come to realise that the

SNP Government in Edinburgh may make a lot of noise, but it's actually

incapable of getting the job done. On the 12th of May, the Prime

Minister is hosting an anti-corruption Summit in London

which has never happened before and I think it will have far reaching

impact. Can we have a debate conferred -- concerning the British

Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies on a process for

benefit information. This is a subject to be debated in Westminster

Hall shortly but by honourable friend is absolutely right about the

role this Government has played in the last six years, bursting

coalition and then on our own. We have delivered -- inevitable change

than any previous Government and we should be proud of that. I thank the

leader for the announcement of the business and with this afternoon's

business which is nominated by the backbench business committed and the

half day and day next week that he has announced, we are inching ever

closer to the 27 days which the backbench business committee are

entitled to within the parliamentary session and I do thank the Leader of

the House for that. As has been mentioned, today is Workers Memorial

Day and it is a day that is commemorated by the TUC and trades

councils all around the country and in my own constituency there will be

a memorial service at noon today. We say, remember the date -- the dead,

remember the living. It is for those who die within their workplace. I

wonder if the leader would consider recognising Workers Memorial Day in

the future Parliamentary calendar? Well, Mr Speaker, can I say first of

all on the subject of Workers Memorial Day that this country is a

better place than it was in the past? He is right, representing an

area where there have been great industrial accidents in the past, to

recognise the progress made but also to recognise those who died before

that progress was made. None of us would want to go back to those days

and even though we often debate the complexity of health and safety, I

put on record that in my view it is in no way in the interest of anyone

in this country to have an environment where people are at risk

in the workplace. When industrial accidents happen, as tragically

happened at Didcot power station recently, we all regret it and I pay

tribute to him and all sides of the House for the work they do to mark

this occasion and that has never go back to a time when these things

were commonplace in our country. With regards to the Parliamentary

character, I am sure he will find an opportunity to recognise this

important day but also to ensure that in coming years, the same

opportunity is there for members of the House. -- the Parliamentary

calendar. Macy, a nine-year-old girl in my constituency is not well at

the moment. I think she was taken into hospital again last night. To

make her completely better, she's going to have to go to the United

States and the NHS are providing for that. But there was a problem

because she couldn't get her passport. She doesn't have a

passport and her mother doesn't have a passport and it would have taken

up to six weeks for this to have occurred. Thanks to the intervention

by my friend, the honourable member for Northampton North, and a

personal intervention of the Home Secretary, the passports are now

going to be sorted out tomorrow. Macy asked if I could thank the

House for that and in particular the Home Secretary. So perhaps we could

have a general debate sometime in the future about how the Government

can, at times, work together for common sense? Mr Speaker, I think my

honourable friend's words say at all. We wish her all the very best

for her treatment and her recovery. It is nice to see. Very often the

image of this place is one of political debate and confrontation,

but actually behind the scenes there are decent people on all sides of

this House, of whom he is one, working under half of their

constituents, trying to solve problems like this one where all of

us would want the right thing to be done. Mr Speaker, the Leader of the

House will know that Calvin Thomas is retiring today after 26 years

great service to the House, including six teen years as a

doorkeeper and in the special gallery since 2009. I know Calvin

well personally because we have sometimes been confused with each

other due to our similar if different names. He has been

consistently charming in carrying out his duties as a valued member of

our staff, so may I raise the banks of all the members of the staff and

wish him a happy retirement on our behalf? The honourable gentleman has

had said it eloquently on behalf of all of us and I would echo his

words, not only to which Calvin a very happy retirement but also to

express thanks to our doorkeepers who are great servants to this

House, treating us all with great courtesy and good humour, performing

valuable work for us and we value what they do enormously. As my right

honourable friend may know, the UK sepsis trust has been working for

some time with the Secretary of State for Health to try to establish

a public awareness campaign. This. Sepsis currently claims around

44,000 lives in the UK a year and the symptoms of the disease are

still not well recognised. Do you think we could have a debate on what

could be done to introduce a sepsis specific awareness campaign for both

children and adults because I believe it would save the lives of

thousands of people every year? Mr Speaker, can I start by

congratulating my honourable friend on the work she is doing in this

important area and say I am aware that the Secretary of State is

taking this issue enormously seriously. He has had meetings about

the kind of work she is talking about and I am sure he will wish to

take that forward. It is of course a very serious matter and it is

beholden upon us, Mr Speaker, as representatives of our constituents

as well as members of the Government to deal with challenges like that. I

would ask the Leader of the House to condemn the Labour PCC candidate in

North Wales for the appallingly callous Twitter comments which can

only be interrupted by right thinking candidates as marking

Hillsborough families. I tend to this. We'll be Leader of the House

presently Business Secretary to make a statement to ensure Port Talbot

workers that this Government priorities -- prioritises their

future indeed as well is worth? All future decisions will be made on

evidence -based research? Mr Speaker, I can ensure the honourable

lady that this is a matter the Government takes enormously

seriously. The Secretary of State for business will be here next week

and I would say to her this is something the Government has taken

interest in from the Prime Minister downwards. He has taken a personal

interest and none of us want to see Paul Tolbert disappear. We all want

to make steel and we will all make sure that it continues. Can we find

time for a debate on the conduct of the EU referendum campaign so far?

Can this thing in the south-west I have filed local residents

absolutely angered by the intervention of the outgoing

president and the intervention of national affairs and the ?9 million

which has been spent on the leaflet and think the booklet making

predictions for 2030 is crazy, when just like weather forecasters they

cannot get their projections right for the next day? My honourable

friend is a vigorous campaigner on these issues and he will be able to

take part in a debate on the 9th of May. The interesting thing is, will

be factors he has described have an impact on the poll he is describing?

We have heard from the Shadow Leader of the House this morning that a

British Airways computer system despite -- designed to stop the

movement of terrorists crashed for 48 hours last year. I have also

learned that an outsourcing programme at BA threatens 800

skilled workers, skilled workers who are working to protect our country.

May we therefore have a debate to discuss the role of outsourcing in

this event and to stop BA from threatening our national security to

save money? The Government takes our national security enormously

importantly and of course, while the failure she talks about to Place,

border control checks do and will always remain in place. Passports

are checked when people arrive in this country and the new border

system is mostly about trying to check people when they leave the

country. It is something we hoped would happen many years ago but it

never came to pass. Can we have a debate in Government time on the

implications for the United Kingdom of the five presidents report on

economic monetary union, because as my right honourable friend will be

aware, under the guise of single market legislation, the proposals

are to take Intel can signal, company law and is property rights,

so don't we have a duty to talk about the consequences of remaining

in the European Union? The five Presidents report is a major

document which sets out the visions of the institution for the next ten

years and it has and will provoke a lively debate about the future of

this country and the European Union as a whole. If my honourable friend

feels it is a matter that should be debated in this House, I would

suggest, and I suspect they would be time available, and I would suggest

a debate on the subject would attract widespread participation.

Last week during prime ministers questions I raised a very serious

issue of food banks increasing in the last year alone of 20% and this

is precisely due to benefit delays and even more criminally benefit

sanctions. One person had been sanctioned for three whole years.

The reply I got from the Leader of the House was, this could only

happen if three reasonable job offers had been turned down so I

want to return to this issue to answer a question. Paul was on ?36 a

week. He was on three sanctions you to not filling out his job log but

correctly. He turned up ten minutes late due to problems getting a bus

and thirdly, he was waiting for an hour at the Jobcentre which he had

two expresses dissatisfaction for. Living on ?36 a week for three whole

years, I would like them to consider as a matter of urgency a debate on

the sanctions on an increasing number of people are having to

depend on the Sanctuary -- the charity of others.

I suggest the honourable gentleman looks at the circumstances of the

case closely because I produced the sanction and it was a judge is for

people who are on three separate occasions turned only reasonable job

offer, people who refused to work, and it remains my view that people

who refuse to work and refuse to work again and again should not be

entitled to carry on receiving support from the benefit system.

Last week in the excellent news, really welcome news that my

honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and safeguard

the qualifications and teaching of community language. Gujarati,

Bengali, who do, Japanese, Arabic, modern Greek, modern Hebrew,

Portuguese and Turkish. That means we have safeguarded the

qualifications and the teachings of these vital languages in the modern

world so that everyone can communicate. Unfortunately, the

Secretary of State was not able at Questions this week to regale the

good news and I don't think something like this should be left

to wither on the vine so surely we should have a statement on this

position so that we can actually make sure that everyone understands

that from 2018, these languages are safeguarded our education system. Of

course this is enormously important and why we have the benefit of this

country and the news we had to an international language and English,

it is right and proper that as a cosmopolitan society we champion

languages that not only preserve the communities that live here but also

open enormous opportunities for Britain around the world saw my

honourable friend makes an important point and I have no doubt she will

look into the different channels available to him to make sure these

matters are debated a lot more in this House. Last week I spoke in the

introduction of the national living wage debate to highlight the

injustice of the decision to deny the living wage to under 25 is. A

young person could start work at 18 and be in a role for seven years

before being paid the same as their older and potentially less

experienced colleagues. Can we give members the time to write this wrong

and extend a living wage to people under 25? It was the policy of this

Government and previous Government to differentiate between older and

younger workers precisely because when a young worker enters the

workplace, the employer is making an investment decision as well as a

recruitment decision. The employer takes responsibility for training

and developing that worker. Many young people who start on the

national living which will live on through success either in their own

workplace or moving to another job to move up the pace skill but I

think it is important to do everything we can to incentivise

employers to take on young people. As we're talking about the dodgy

behaviour of PCC candidates, a number of folks standing for

election next week are previous coppers who are trading on the

record as police officers. Does he agree with me that they should bring

forward proposals to make sure that those standing to be PCC makes their

police service records available for scrutiny? My honourable friend makes

an important point, I am aware of allegations around the Labour PCC

candidate in Humberside. It is absolutely the case that if the

story alleged is true, he is unfit for public office and it is a matter

of public interest that the two should be known before election day.

Back in 1847 when Lord John Russell was Prime Minister, our taxi

licensing laws were developed. We now have a problem in the North West

of England where one particular local authority is handing out

Hackney taxi licences like sweeties. The problem we've got is that once

you have a hackney license, you can operate as a private hire a anywhere

in the country so there are no taxis on this local authority operating as

far afield as Bristol without appropriate checks and balances so

can we have an urgent debate on how we bring up to date our taxi

licensing regime? The honourable gentleman makes a good point and I

was not aware of the situation. I will make sure that as John to the

attention of the Secretary of State who was also unaware I'm sure I will

look at the matter seriously. The Secretary of State for communities

and local Government has threatened to introduce legislation which would

make it illegal for those in my constituency to charge on Government

and organise sporting event which attracts the few hundred people to a

small part every weekend. I think it is a tad hypocritical. Could I ask

my honourable friend if we can have a debate on the power of local

councils the freedom to charge organisers who run sporting events

in their parks? I am not aware of the proposal my honourable friend

refers to it but I understand his concern and I can see why he would

raise this as a matter of importance in the House today. What I would say

to him is that I will draw that to the Secretary of State. Clearly we

want to encourage local authorities to support and develop and underpin

events like this that bring communities together. He makes an

important point about his own constituency. I'll make sure we get

the proper response for you. This week seen a dispute between the

other place in this chamber and instead of leading to accompanied

refugee children being allowed in, it will lead to more cronies in the

House of Lords. The leader said there is no appetite for proper

reform. I would like to ask him to make a statement, asking when is the

public appetite for even more cronies and donors in the 800 that

exist at present and where does the manifesto commitment to continue

stuffing that other place? I do think the honourable gentleman and

his colleagues opposite insult many of the very deserving and very

effective people operating the other place, people who represent the

disability lobby who have serious disabilities themselves, people who

represent the arts world who have long track record in the arts,

people from the business world. I think the expertise and the other

place brings something significant to our parliamentary system even

though sometimes the two houses disagree over issues are weak -- as

we are currently. Given the delays my constituents have faced in reform

payments, could we have a debate on farmers whose land crosses the

English and Welsh borders and Scottish and English borderers who

always appear to be at the back of the queue? This of course remains an

issue. I have spoken to the department about this and it is true

across the country that the vast majority of payments have now been

made but I hear the point my honourable friend makes an owl make

sure the Secretary of State is aware of his concerns and she will be here

next week and will be able to respond to him fully. The Leader of

the House will be aware of the emerging crisis at the yards on the

Clyde tasked with building the type 26 frigate. A late start of the

project and uncertainty over the future workflow threatens hundreds

of jobs at Govan in Scotstoun. Can we therefore have a debate on

Government time to allow members of this House to discuss in depth the

future of the Klein ship building industry -- Clyde, and give a voice

to those workers and should of the future? The reason the Clyde

shipbuilding industry has a strong future is twofold, firstly because

they remain part of the United Kingdom and therefore benefit from

the United Kingdom's defence spending and the second is because

this Government has committed to the 2% spending level is part of our

commitment to Nato. If those things were not happening, of course the

future would be much more uncertain but I'm convinced that the Clyde

shipyards have a strong future. They are an essential part of and we need

to make sure they continue to flourish. I have a statement about

the treatment of Idaho is about politicians, petitions that

attracted large number of signatures. As the leader knows,

there's going to be a debate on the 9th of May about the petition to

stop the Government spending sums of public money on pro Remain EU

referendum. 2072 have so far signed as a few moments ago but that debate

will be held in Westminster hall were no vote can be held. Should it

not be a possibility for the backbench business committee to hold

such debates in the main chamber because otherwise petitioners will

be disappointed to find that although their concerns get debated,

the House is unable to vote on them? My honourable friend makes an

important point and not only on the subject, there are others, I do

think I would encourage discourse between the two honourable members

who cheer the business and backbench committees to see how well it

petition reaches a certain level of public interest that the debate can

be brought to the front of the House. Perhaps I can see from the

chair, I think that would be a very good thing. I wouldn't dream of

taking sides on the issues but in terms of the link dream Parliament

and the people, I think it is very important that it be not just

tangible but meaningful and a little scope for progress there so I very

much appreciate what the Leader of the House has said. On that topic of

democracy and having votes, the House divided last week on a motion

to ask the UK Government to bring to the UN security council the issue of

genocide against Christians, Yazidis and other people. The House 4278

votes to zero. What the House do to bring the Government to account to

make sure that it respects the democracy of this place and do what

it has been asked to do and make sure that we take crimes against the

people in these countries to the UN Security Council as major action is

taken? The Government's position as one of shock, horror and

condemnation about what has taken place, that is an unreserved

statement, and I know that my honourable friend the Foreign

Secretary is taking careful note of the view of the House as expressed

in the debate that the honourable gentleman refers to. I recently had

cause to write to the president of the European Commission asking him

to clarify the role his commission is playing in her EU referendum. I

have had no answer but given the fact that the commission spent ?560

million directly promoting itself in 2014, that the commission interfered

in the Irish referendum in 2009, could we have a statement from the

Government as to whether it believes EU interviewers in this referendum

as well, not? As I understand, it has no powers to prevent the EU

being an unwelcome active participant in our democratic

process. I can confirm that that is the case. However, I'm sure there

will be different opinions in this House as to whether such an

intervention would be helpful or unhelpful to either side of the

argument. The minister who spoke from that dispatch box less than a

year ago is now employed by industry in China, presumably using his

insider knowledge with firms that bring competition with British

industries. 70% of former civil servants on income tax are now

working in the retirement tax avoidance industry, there should be

a fierce, Rottweiler watchdog but there is nothing but a poodle

without teeth or clause, Bart -- bark or bite and it is useless. Tell

us what you really think! I'm not sure if my memory is correct but if

I remember rightly, the committee to which she referred was set up by the

party of which she is a part and I would remind him that it was a

senior member of his own party who describe themselves after leaving

office and well in pursuit of commercial opportunities as a taxi

for hire. I visited the rugby junket is project in my constituency under

the inspirational dealership of Annette Callier for amazing young

people who play a part in the care of family members so I was concerned

to hear that Warwickshire Young carers Project will lose funding

that affects those under 18 and it will have an effect in rugby. Can I

ask for a debate in the importance of properly supporting these young

people? My friend makes an important point. One of the most invisible

drips of yours are our young carers. None of us understand it until we

come across it, how a child can be a full-time carer for a parent. I have

a young carers in my constituency which does enormously valuable work.

His grip plays an important role clearly and I'm sure he will do

everything he can to make sure its future is guaranteed because it is

important to the communities represents.

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the discriminatory language

that has been used in the chamber recently the Education Secretary

called the opposition death, using deafness as a pejorative term, which

I think is unacceptable. The Prime Minister used the term pond see,

which many people think is homophobic. I wonder if we could

have a statement about the language that we use in this chamber. Mr

Speaker, I think people here in words what they want to hear but the

one thing I would say is that nobody could accuse the pie Minister of

homophobia. The man who bought this House and saw through same-sex

marriage is not somebody who could ever be described as homophobic. We

know that there has been a very thorough committee meeting on the UK

steel industry but will be Leader of the House organised a statement to

be put out next week so that all members are able to put questions to

ministers on behalf of our steel towns, because it is very important

that both we and our constituents know exactly what is happening and

what process -- progress is being made to secure the industry? All of

those who represent steel towns have done a great job in recent weeks to

remind us of the importance of that industry and I commend them for

that. I can lay on just such an opportunity because next week is the

Business Secretary them skills questions and he will be -- he will

be able to put it to the Secretary of State then. Heart of the press

this morning is early day motion 1432 which backs up the bill I

produced on Tuesday to abolish hereditary peers rights to vote and

speak in the House of Lords. Given that there are now the same number

of members on the front bench of the Government as they were voting in

the election of hereditary peers last week, is there not -- is it not

time we had a debate to and this farcical process? The party opposite

was endowment for 13 years but didn't address the issue they are

calling for change on. We all admit that there is something curiously

quaint about the Liberal Democrat electorate of three and one has to

cut them a bit of slack because there are so few of them these days,

but my view is that there are pressing issues facing this country

and probably dealing with three people is not top of them. Can I ask

the Leader of the House if we can have a debate on the London licensed

taxi trade? My black cab drivers in my constituency offer a lots more to

London and their community than Uber does. Mr Speaker, my honourable

friend makes an important point and in the free market, London taxi

drivers do face challenges, but I believe they are the best in the

world. I believe they bring something of immense value to our

city and I don't believe anything that any of us in politics, either

at this level or at the London level, would wish to jeopardise

that. Because of statements made in the back page business debate a

couple of weeks ago in this House, I presume the Government will see for

security review the Chilcott report last week. Can the Leader of the

House are daters when we can expect a debate in the House? I am aware

that it is now going through what I hope are the final processes before

publication and I have said to this House before there is not a person

on our side of the House who would not wish to see that report out and

published. We were not in power at the time so the issues in their do

not affect us. We want to see the truth out there and we want to learn

lessons about the Chilcott process in the event of this other having to

happen again. Could we have a debate on making it easier for metropolitan

councils to switch to all-out elections or elections by halves,

said that councils like Dudley can cut the cost of local politics but

Mr Speaker, it is of course an important issue. They have the

bleeding to do that. It is a matter for local councils as to whether

they have elections in thirds, hard or individually and my personal view

is that it is a real hike for a local council to do elections every

year and I prefer all out elections by self but that is down to local

decision-making. Every year on the Sunday closest to St George's Day

Enfield Scouts and guides take part in St George 's date parades through

Enfield town and I am normally there with them. It is a fantastic day. I

want to pay to be to be Scouts and the guides but particularly to all

the volunteer leaders who enable Scouts and guides to happen for our

young people and what a good job they do. I am very concerned that

with the cuts that the Government is passing down to local authorities,

youth services are severely at risk and I would ask for a debate in

Government time to consider this problem that is affecting our young

people and their families. Mr Speaker, can I also pay tribute to

the honourable lady for what she had said about anti-Semitism in her

party. It brings credit to her as it does to the Shadow leader. Can I

also say to her that I absolutely at tree with her on the role of the

Scouts and guides but I would say that of course what they represent

is the best of our voluntary sector and I think that sometimes we look

to depend too much on the Government and public sector for the best work.

That work is happening without any involvement of the Government and

has done in the centuries since the Scouts and guides movement was

formed and long may it continue. The Jewish immunity has a history with

Scotland going beyond 200 years -- 's Jewish community, and I know

members of this House will want to send a message that we value the

contribution they have made not just in Scotland but across the United

Kingdom. With that in mind and given events this week, can we have a

debate on the valuable contribution that they have made to civil society

in this country and, equally important, how we retard

anti-Semitism in our political discourse in this country? The

honourable gentleman makes a clearly important point and we have heard

important contributions on that subject today. This is not just

about anti-Semitism. It is about as phobia and prejudices against other

groups in our society. There is no place in our society for racial

prejudice. It has no place and we should unreservedly condemn it

whenever we find it. I would like to ask if we could possibly in light of

changes to the railways have a debate about how community groups,

such as mining Berry, could lead to discuss how they can drive forward

local ownership of railway assets that are to be disposed of so that

local people get a say in what happens in their locality? This is

actually a very important point and we have to be very careful about

disposing of our assets for two reasons. One, as she has described,

and the other because local authorities often have a vision to

bring transport back into the locale and if that is sold off, that option

is taken away. One of the things I am proud of is the reopening of

railway lines and railway corridors of the last 15 years. You will be

aware, Mr Speaker, that recently a new service was opened from Oxford

to London Marylebone across lines which were previously disused and

have been brought into operation again and Chiltern Railways. She

makes an important point because had decisions being made to dispose of

those facilities, that route would not have been possible. We'll ready

see the reopening of the line from Cambridge, said she makes an

important point about heroin constituency but it is applicable

across the country. Last month in business questions I raised the

point of Mike constituent -- of my constituency who took a drug which

left her children with birth defects. I was advised to raise this

at health questions but unfortunately I wasn't successful

and I wonder if you have any advice for me on how I can raise the issue

of this drug? The health minister has just arrived in the House, so

that opportunity, and will probably have heard what she said, but I will

raise this with the Department of Health for her at the end of this

session and I will ask the appropriate minister to respond to

her. She makes a good point and it is one we must be clear of. Many

drugs make a difference to our society but when there are side

effects like that that she refers to, we must be very careful I am

most anxious that the Minister on the Treasury bench should have an

opportunity to regain his breath. He is a very welcome arrival. He has

just done the marathon. That might be why he is out of breath. Mr

Speaker, could we have a debate to discuss the crazy situation I faced

in Bexhill and Battle where our local authority has parking

enforcement matters the responsibility of the police, who

have stated that they can no log do this because they are required to

look after policing matters. The local authority refused to take it

on and this is driving our residents and business people absolutely mad.

Could we have a debate about whether the men should step in and end this

madness? Before I answer that, in relation to the arrival of my

honourable friend for North East Bedfordshire, can I pay tribute to

him but to all the members of the House he ran the marathon last

weekend and emerged with medals around their neck, and in the past,

but I'd like to focus on this year, please, and I commend all those who

raised funds for charity, raised awareness of charities and they

deserve a collective pat on the back from people of this House. What I

would say from my honourable friend is that he is right. I can

understand the frustration that local businesses have I would urge

him to be double the on local authorities. If they have enough

people coming behind him and what he wants to achieve, in the end, they

will have to give way. I am grateful to the Leader of the House and I

join him in congratulating the Minister on the front bench on

running the marathon again and all other participants in the marathon.

But the Leader of the House said is both right and greatly appreciated

by colleagues.