20/07/2017 House of Commons

sympathy with anybody who loses their job, but with the greatest

respect the honourable gentleman, those facts are not quite correct.

On October two, the Dean announced his retirement and he did not leave

the deanery and he was not asked to leave until the following February,

giving him six months residence. These are the facts I have been

given, Mr Speaker. We should try and leave this term on a happier note.

So if I could conclude by wishing all colleagues a very welcome

honourable lady in that and she was honourable lady in that and she was

very gracious, typically gracious, in her comments about the honourable

member for Sunderland South, who I warmly welcome to her new

responsibilities. Which have been very effectively discharged today.

And I also thank the right honourable lady, who is always

courteous, fair and comprehensive in responding to enquiries. I hope that

both members can take a rest from their owner is duties, both

constituency and in respect of the other matters about which we have

heard this morning. Urgent question. Diana Johnson. Will the Secretary of

State for Health make a statement on the responsibility for establishing

the contaminated blood scandal? Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like

to begin by adding my own personal apology to those who have spoken in

this House on previous occasions about the tragedy of contaminated

blood and to reiterate the government recognises the terrible

impact it has had on many thousands of lives. The Government recognises

previous enquiries into the events that led to 1,000 people being

infected with HIV and hepatitis C to NHS supplies blood products did not

go for enough. That is why on Tuesday, July 11, the Prime Minister

established a further enquiry so the causes of this tragedy can be fully

understood. Once established, we want that enquiry to be fully

independent. Before it is established, there is a need to

define the scope and format so terms of reference could be set by the

relevant Secretary of State. Given the impact this tragedy has had on

so many, it is vital that we get this right and from the start. I am

aware of the concerns raised this week by those affected, by campaign

groups and by members of this House, and indeed I spoke to the honourable

lady on Tuesday about this very issue. So I would like to reassure

the House that the Government has asked yet made no final decisions on

the scope and format of an enquiry or on its leadership. I have taken

on this policy area and I am keen to make sure that all those affected

are given an opportunity to give their thoughts and opinions. I

understand that it is normal practice for public enquiries to be

sponsored by the relevant departments. But in light of

concerns raised, we are keen to listen to those concerns and ensure

they are addressed, so we are in discussions with Cabinet Office and

colleagues across government to ensure that this enquiry does its

job, does it well and under appropriate leadership. That is why

an early meeting was scheduled today at the Cabinet office, whether

Secretary of State and ministers hope to understand the important

views of those affected about the shape and establishment of an

enquiry. This is the first of several meetings the Government

would like to offer over the coming weeks. And I strongly encourage

anyone affected to give their views. Our door is open for anyone who

wants to discuss the enquiry or raise any concerns they may have. It

is important to know that whatever arrangement is agreed for this

independent enquiry, there will be safeguards in place to ensure

independence. By ensuring the Secretary to the enquiry has never

worked at the Department of Health or any agencies. We are absolutely

committed to a thorough and transparent enquiry and we want to

establish the best format and remit. That is why we want to hear as many

opinions as possible and we will work with those affected and members

of this House to do so. Before I call the honourable lady whose

question it is and are grateful to the Minister for the clarity of what

she has said, I should emphasise this is not an occasion for a

general debate on the contaminated blood scandal. We have had that on

many occasions. I have also granted urgent questions previously to the

honourable member from Kingston upon Hull North on this matter. The issue

is very specifically the responsibility and at a stretch the

scope, and if members can tailor their questions accordingly, that

would be greatly appreciated. Urgent question. Diana Johnson. Can I also

thank you for granting this urgent question this morning? Whilst I

welcome last week's announcement of an enquiry into the contaminated

blood scandal, I along with the majority affected by this scandal,

their families, campaign groups and legal representatives and many

cross-party parliamentarians are dismayed to see the Department of

Health reading on the establishment of this enquiry. The Department of

Health, and implicated party at the heart of so much that has gone wrong

over the past 45 years, must have no role in how this enquiry is

established. It is a killing, in my view, to asking South Yorkshire

Police to read an inquiry into the Hillsborough Disaster. And I regret

that the Government has not been able to understand that by putting

the Department of Health in charge at this time, it immediately

undermines their excellent decision to call a public inquiry last week.

In consequence, contaminated blood campaigners boycotted a meeting

organised by the Department of Health at 10am today in protest.

Another department must surely now take over responsibility for

consulting on the remit of this inquiry. The Minister needs to

answer three questions urgently, and I am pleased that the Government

acknowledged the overwhelming and unanimous opposition to the

Department of Health consulting on the inquiry, including from over 250

campaigners, ten campaign groups, the haemophilia Society and two law

firms which represents 760 claimants. On Tuesday 18th of July,

at the Minister explain why the Department of Health called a

meeting for 10am to date with just two days notice in Central London,

at a time most difficult, inconvenient and exclusive for

people affected to try and attend? And when I spoke the Minister, she

said the plans to update the House by September and get the inquiry and

running as soon as possible, that was not made clear to campaigners or

MPs and why was that? I still believe the case is even more

pressing that another department should take over the work of

establishing this inquiry now and that Department must then have a

true and meaningful consultation with everyone affected so they can

be fully involved and have confidence in this public inquiry.

As I mentioned, there has been no firm view as to which department

will run the inquiry, but ultimately, as the Minister with

responsibility for this area, it would be remiss if I did not have

meetings and discussions with those affected about the remit of this

inquiry. When my honourable friend made the statement of the House

about the inquiry, we made quite clear we wanted to progress as soon

as possible. The Secretary of State called this meeting because we want

to hear directly from the victims about what they want from this

inquiry. We are very much in listening mode. The decision has not

yet been taken which Department will run it, but ultimately as a

Minister, I am accountable to Parliament for what happens in the

Department of Health for those areas which are under my responsibility

and I want to lead from the front, having those discussions. I thank

the Minister for saying what she just has done that no decision has

been taken about which Department will run the inquiry. So does she

agree that perception is as important as reality in this matter?

And therefore, will she take away from this occasion this morning the

weight placed by Honourable Members on both sides of the House that

perhaps it would be perceived to be more objective if some of the

Department took the lead? -- some other Department. I would say the my

honourable friend and I have repeated this, the Cabinet office is

very closely involved in this. This opportunity has given me the time to

make that quite clear to the House. The Government is listening, we want

to consult as wide as possible and no decision has yet been taken. But

the Cabinet office is very closely involved in all the consultation we

are closely -- currently having. It is disappointing that we are here

again today. So soon after the announcement last week. A week ago,

has united in agreement to facilitate justice for those

tragically affected by this scandal yet in recent days, as we have

heard, events have shown ministers to renege on must week's promises

and run roughshod over the affected community. You shake your head, but

that is how the community feels. There are three key questions, the

Minister must answer these. I hope she will be more forthcoming than

she was the my honourable friend. Understandably, the community have

deeply held suspicion when it comes to the Department of Health, so why

have the ministers ignored these concerns and demands to facilitate

an inquiry through another department such as the Ministry of

Justice? This is well-documented in the letter to the Prime Minister by

my honourable friend, the Haemophilia Society, the ten

campaign groups and law firms. Why does the Minister think they can so

easily disregard these people? Events over the last days have shown

last week's promised to consult, engage and listen to the community

were simply words. The audacious move to hold a round table meeting

this morning with such little notice given the potential attendees from

across the UK hinders many from being involved in the process of

setting up this inquiry. Can ministers explain why this meeting

was held at such short notice, who they plan to invite so the meeting

was properly consultative, and he was scheduled to attend in the end

following the mass boycotting by many invited who felt this offer of

a meeting was a slap in the face? It is important to have this inquiry

sooner rather than later, yet not at the expense of jeopardising justice.

Will the Minister publicly outline out the timetable for this inquiry,

is the gunmen's intention to initiate the inquiry in September

and if so, why has this not been made public? Why is it that we must

bring ministers to the House again to make this clear? Does this not go

against everything we were promised last week? The Minister must

remember the promises made just last week and ensure consultation is

central to this process, otherwise they will fail this community who

must have the justice they so rightly deserve.

Quest We are delivering on the commitments made last week. We made

clear then we wanted to get this inquiry going as soon as possible,

because frankly, these people have waited long enough for answers. We

have not ignored the concerns expressed by many about the role of

the Department of Health holding an inquiry. I repeat again, no decision

has been made and the Cabinet Office is very closely involved with how

we're taking this forward. As for the complaints about the short

notice of the meeting this week, organised by the Secretary of State,

it is because we want to hear directly from people directly

affected as soon as possible that such a meeting was arranged before

the House rises. It is just the start. We want there to be good,

effective dialogue. As she will appreciate and the rest of the House

will, it is very important that we all inspire confidence in this

process, and given the cross-party support that we had at the time that

the inquiry was announced, it's very disappointing that we are bogged

down in a process right now. Like others in the chamber I welcome the

announcement about the public inquiry and I am encouraged by what

the minister is tells us this morning. One of my constituent who

was affected has raised the issue about which department should take

the lead in the inquiry. I wonder if my honourable friend can confirm

what role victims, families and campaigners will play? Ond how it is

best tone gauge with her and her department at this stage? Well, I

thank my honourable friend for the question she's raised. Obviously we

want to hear from as many people as possible and want to reflect on

their reputations. If they want to be clear and blunt about the

Department of Health, then we need to hear those reputations in order

that we make the best reputations about who takes this forward. Thank

you, Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable lady for bringing forward

this question and pay tribute for pushing this subject to ensure we

get justice for those so tragically affected. We must get the right

answers and this inquiry must command the confidence of those

affected. Can the minister confirm when a decision will be made, to

which the department will lead on the the establishment of an inquiry?

Can the minister confirm that the inquirly will include the victims

and families so they are sensitive to what they want to know and ensure

the Government will ensure sure that things behind the barriers will be

opened up, so light can be shed on this matter, as with Hillsborough?

To be clear, the Department of Health is the department for the

inquiry. It will be entirely don't. Whoever oversees it has to be

determined. Clearly having made the statement and the statement to hold

this inquiry we need to halt to make sure that the inquiry does reflect

and answer the questions he's made. Central to that will be exactly

that. It needs to be seen as transparent, open, fully

independent. Once it is established, it will be entirely removed from the

Department of Health. That should be enough to inspire confidence,

provided we get the consultation right to get the remit right. Mr

Speaker, I have two constituents that are affected be think terrible

tragedy who have contacted me with concerns regarding the department

involvement. This is a unique situation. Especially with the time

it's taken to bring forward this inquiry and cred it should go to the

Government for bringing forward that inquiry. It is important that

justice is seen to be dope. Would the minister consult with members of

the all-party group on who she determined would be the right people

to oversee -- justice is seen to be done. Would the minister consult

with members of the all party group on who she determined would be right

people to oversee this. Can I welcome the Government's

decision to hold this the inquiry in response to my honourable friend's

campaign. I know she's acting in good health. Health department

officials have advised there was no need for an inquiry and that there

was no problem at the heart of this issue. And therefore, because of

that, will she recognise that for many of those who have campaigned

for this, it would have much greater credibility if the sponsoring

department is another department, be it the department for justice or

Cabinet Office? If all of the staff do not come from the health

department and also if those, one of those other departments could be

involved in the consultation and the establishment and the remit. It is

no criticism of her. I know she takes this very seriously. I would

advice her to hand this one over to another department and let them run

with it instead. I understand the point the

honourable lady is making. I repeat the Cabinet Office is closely

involved with this at this stage. She would consider it amiss of me

not to take a close interest as this consultation is taken forward. But I

cannot say enough. It is absolutely essential that the way this inquiry

is established must inspire confidence in those people affected.

It is that that we're trying to achieve by the consultation. As I

say, we want to hear from them. We are completely open minded as to

which department will take responsibility going forward. Right

now I want to have those conversations because I want to

understand their concerns with what has happened with the Department of

Health. As a minister I need to give that challenge.

The letter from the honourable lady, from Hull, started by putting

gratitude to the Government for the progress which has been made so far.

We have been welcomed decades ago, but it is right to acknowledge it

now. The letter included three practical points which think I the

letter put better than the front bench op. It is I think the

machinery of Government cannot work overnight normally. I think that the

questions and answers today would help Government and the Prime

Minister decide whether the right solution is as my friend has

suggested having another department or the Cabinet Office taking on the

consultation, the Department of Health helping as far as they can.

Can they guarantee the third point of the honourable lady's letter that

no records will be drad, all will be a-- destroyed, all will be available

to the inquiry? I can give that commitment. Just to reit thor rate,

we have made many documents available in public or published. I

can give every assurance that nothing will be destroyed. Having

now taken the decision to hold an inquiry, we must get it right. I am

happy to hear from honourable members at any time if they have any

specific concerns about whether they think evidence is being withheld, so

I can satisfy myself that is not the case. This is not a matter of

challenging the minister's personal integrity at all. That is not under

any doubt. What is under doubt is the wisdom of the decision to have

the department that is implications in the concerns of what happened in

the past involved at any point in consultation and in taking this

inquiry forward. I hope before we go into the recess an urgent statement

can be rush odd out, advicing that the Cabinet Office or the minister

of -- Ministry of Justice will lead not only on the outline, but the

consultation on the inquiry and then we can have trust from those who

have been involved. It is quite without precedent that at this

stage, just shortly after announcing an inquir a, that such a decision --

inquiry that such a decision would be made. It is normal practise to

embark on the consultation. As I will repeat again, the Cabinet

Office is closely involved in this, from the perspective of ethics and

the Department of Health is not working alone. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I warmly welcome the fact that the inquiry is now happening

and the Government's decision to undertake it, given the decades

which have gone pass and the scandal occurred. Would she be able to

reassure victims that in terms of any judicial involvement that the

identityive of the judge concerned will be by the Lord Chief Justice,

not by any department? That would be the normal procedure. Yes, I can

give that commitment. Can the Secretary of State assure us

that in the responsibility of this inquiry, there are real powers which

will enable the inquiry to ensure that it has proper access to all the

witnesses and documents necessary, and which will be vital to

developing a just settlement for all those affected by this and their

families and that a fair financial system will be in place to support

them because this could take some time? Well, that question we really

are looking to be settled by this consultation. One of the decisions

that #23450eds to be taken is what shape the inquiry should take place.

Because, clearly we normally do this through a stat Tory inquiry. That

would have the powers she refers to. Equally members of the House have

made reputations that it should be Hillsborough-still, which by

definition would be more fleet of foot. The reason we are pushing

forward is to get that feedback so we put together an inquiry that

inspires confidence amongst those who have been campaigning for this

for so long. Far from being negative, I think the

Government should be applauded for swift action, recently. Not perhaps

in the past. And they are listening. Already committed extra compensation

in solving the system and announcing the inquiry, sorting out the complex

system we had before, but also the fact that we have now listening and

the right thing is, can the minister give assurances particularly to my

constituents that the right department will be chosen? We have

to give confidence that we will not, many speaker, all be here again

discussing this and we have the chance to sort it out now. I think

that the purpose of consultation is so that people can make their points

about which department should oversee the inquiry and we will

respond accordingly. Please encourage people to participate in

consultation. If the consultation with interest groups unanimously

says that the inquiry should be held by another department, will the

minister respect that view? What we need to do is understand their

concerns. We will only achieve that by having dialogue. We are here to

listen and to listen to those concerns. Now we have decide to go

ahead with this inquiry I want to make sure that we get it right.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I again put on record how pleased I am about

the commitment to hold this inquiry for my constituents and their

families who have been so affected? And thank the minister for her time

listening to me on this yesterday. So, does she agree with me that by

listening and only listening to those most affected that we can

finally get the answers for the victims and their families that they

are seeking? Well, I think we can only gain from having dialogue and

it is in that spirit that we want to have as many conservations with

those people affected as possible. It is disappointing that the meeting

we had this morning wasn't attended. But I hope that going forwards we

will have some meaningful dialogue. Mr Speaker, can I ask the minister

to respect it is not reasonable to ask campaign groups from Scotland to

attend a meeting at two days' notice? Can I also ask, given there

is a distinct legal system in Scotland, has there been any thought

to that in any discussion with campaign groups or with the Scottish

Government? Well, as I say, that was the first of what we hope will be

many conversations. I think the campaign groups in Scotland,

arrangements for made for them to dial into the meeting so they could

participate. I have already started discussions with the Scottish

Government about how this inquiry will play out and effect the

position in Scotland. We are having the conversations in a healthy

co-operation and we are looking how to make use of what has been gone

through with the Penrose Inquiry. We will continue to have dialogue and

we are very sensitive to those issues. At the weekend I saw my

constituent, Sue Wafton, whose case I raised in the debate last week.

She was delighted with the Government's commitment. One issue

she wants to see considered is that of access for appropriate treatments

for victims. For most victims that is the most important issue. Will my

honourable friend feed that back? I think my honourable friend makes the

point very well. This is exactly the sort of thing that we need to hear

from this consultation when we are setting the scope and clearly access

to treatment is a very important issue. To ask his constituent to

write in and make those points. Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a

consensus across the House. Everyone has made the point that they don't

have confidence in the Department of Health running this inquiry. I

expect an announcement from the minister soon. If it is the Cabinet

Office appointed though, the Cabinet Office does have a bit of a track

record of taking a rather long time with inquiries and being used to

kick things into the long grass. Can she assure us it will be a speedy,

but thorough inquiry? The speed will be determined by the

chairman because the inquiry will be independent, and that is the point.

At the moment, the Department of Health is reading on conversations,

but the inquiry will be independent and not run at the Department for

health. Health is a devolved matter, so can she give the House a

commitment there will be maximum cooperation with all the devolved

institutions in the UK? I can give him that commitment and I have

already had discussions with the Welsh Minister about this.

Absolutely, this is a UK wide inquiry, help is a devolved matter,

and the findings of inquiry, we will need to work quite closely to make

sure we all respond to what that finds.

Also thank the Minister for her statement and commend the honourable

leader for her tenacity in this issue? The Northern Ireland health

has in -- has brought us on a par with combo -- with compensation paid

in the UK, it is essential Northern Ireland victims are included. So it

is not done on an English and Wales basis. Can the Minister confirm this

to be the case? Again, I can reassure the honourable gentleman we

are very sensitive to the facts as they will apply the Northern Ireland

and we will ensure the requisite dialogue takes place, so we deal

with that sensitively. Thank you. Order. Statement, the Secretary of

State for digital, -- digital Culture, Media and Sport bought.

Karen Bradley. It is good you have got my longer title! I came to this

House three weeks ago to set out my initial decisions in relation to the

proposed merger between 21st century Fox and Sky plc. Having heard the

bid for a phase one investigation by Ofcom and the competition in markets

authority in March, the decision before me was whether or not to

refer the merger to a follow-up phase two investigation by the CMA.

I told the House following the advice of Ofcom, and was minded to

refer the merger to the CMA and not refer on the grounds the commitment

the broadcasting standards. I had also received a set of undertakings

in place of referral and was minded not to accept them. I also set up

the steps for the next phase of the decision. I said that as required by

legislation and would allow the parties to the proposed merger to

make representations on my position on media plurality. In the interest

of transparency and making sure the evidence had been considered, I

would allow all interested parties to have their say, decree on the

question of commitment to broadcasting standards. I Sepp

Blatter Friday -- last Friday as the deadline. As is very well known by

the House, decisions by the Secretary of State under the

enterprise act 2002 and made a neck was a judicial basis. So I must take

my decision only on the basis of evidence that is relative to the

specified publicist -- public interests. I must follow a process

that is scrupulously fair and impartial. I have tried about this

process to be as transparent and open as possible and kept the House

informed at every available opportunity. I have come to the

House today to give a full update before it rises. I can confirm I

have received detailed representations from 21st-century

Fox and a letter from Sky which I will aim to publish subject to

statutory and confidentiality requirements once I have taken my

final decision Matt also received a letter from James Murdoch last week

and from 21st Century Fox this Thursday which they have published.

The detailed representations from a gritty raise a number of points on

the Ofcom public test report and analysis/ analysis underpinning it,

contesting the view that it raises public interest concerns which

justify referral to a phase two investigation by the CMA. Neither

party has offered any further or amended undertakings in lieu of

referral and I have received a substantial number of responses in

relation to my decision. In coming to my decision, and must take

account of all relevant representations made to me. As a

result, my final decision on referral can only be made after I

have fully considered all relevant evidence on both the plurality and

commitment to broadcasting standard grounds. Given the consultation only

closed on Friday, there has not been time to consider all the

representations and I am not in a position today to make my final

decision on referral. What I can do however is confirmed to the House

that having carefully reviewed the party's representations and in the

absence of further proposed undertakings, I am currently still

minded to refer on the media plurality grounds and still minded

not to accept the undertakings in lieu of a referral. As I have said,

I must fully consider all relevant representations for reaching a final

decision. And I will take the time I need to look at the many I have

received, balancing the need for careful consideration of relevant

evidence with the merger parties legitimate need for a prompt

decision. I have prioritised considering the parties

representations and the points they have made to me. Some of the points

may benefit from close examination by the CMA in phase two, there was

nothing in the representations that at this stage has led me to change

my mind about the appropriateness of referral. Unless new evidence from

other representations changes my mind, the bid will therefore be

referred to a phase two review on at least one grand, media plurality. I

thought it helpful to setup my view given the public interest in this

case and also to the parties so they can be as clear as possible about my

intentions and the likely next steps for bid. Bearing in mind the

obligation to act promptly as part of the scores a judicial process, I

expect to be in a position to come to a final decision on referral in

concluding in respect of the broadcasting standard ground in the

coming weeks and potentially during summer recess. Should this prove to

be the case and as I did previously were stages have taken place outside

the House sitting, I will inform parties of my decision and the

leaders and speakers on both houses, to the chair of the Select Committee

who I was pleased to see reappointed last week. I trust in making the

statement of the House that this gives another welcome opportunity to

discuss this important issue and further cements my undertakings to

openness and transparency, and I commend the statement to the House.

Good morning to you, thank you as this is the last day before recess,

to you and just for the welcome you have made to my new colleagues who

were elected in the general election. I think the Secretary of

State for his statement, and I am grateful to her for returning to the

House before recess to update the progress. Even if there is not much

progress to date on. Mr Speaker, the last day of term is sometimes called

take out the trash day! This appears to be keep the trash in the office

day! Nevertheless, this is one piece of government indecision that we

welcome. It is right that the Secretary of State has taken a cause

they judicial responsibility seriously, she will be aware that

whatever decision she makes, there is a strong possibility of judicial

review by one side or the other. No doubt that has influenced her

decision to tread carefully and slowly and we respect her for that.

21st Century Fox's lawyers have already contacted the citystate in a

somewhat intimidating letter trying to bounce into a decision, we know

that aggression is the modus operandi of the Murdoch enterprise

and we have been on the receiving end of that and we urge the secular

state to keep standing firm. In particular, there is absolutely no

need for the Secretary of State to announce a decision during the

summer recess. Parliament must have the opportunity to scrutinise any

decisions she makes. It is not her job to operate to 21st Century Fox's

corporate timetable. They have to abide by the Parliamentary

timetable. And she should demonstrate to them that she is, as

an elected representative of the people who is in charge, not them.

The last time the citystate came to this House, she said that she was

minded to the referred the bid to a phase two investigation on the

grounds of media plurality, she said this morning. But that she was not

minded to refer on grounds of broadcasting standards. She then

invited representations on both grounds by last Friday. It is right

a phase two investigation and media plurality grounds goes ahead. But

the broadcasting standards investigation should go ahead as

well, compelling arguments for that had been made by my right honourable

friend the member for Doncaster North and the right honourable

members for Twickenham and Rushcliffe. Does she agree that this

is as distinguished a cross-party alliance as anyone can imagine? And

she also agree that it is absurd that Ofcom are currently refusing to

meet my colleagues are right honourable member for Doncaster

North so that they can share concerns? The truth is, the Murdochs

have a history of regulatory noncompliance. And of corporate

governance failure. And that calls their commitment to broadcasting

standards in serious question. Ofcom itself says that are significant

concerns about Fox's approach to ensuring Fox News content compliance

with the broadcasting code. We saw in the phone hacking scandal senior

employees and executives at News International fails to comply with

the criminal law. Acceptable standards of journalistic conduct,

and frankly, with basic human decency. And we see in the ongoing

sexual and racist harassment scandal with Fox News in the United States

were very senior employees behaved appallingly over decades and nothing

was done. Evidence of what Ofcom calls significant corporate failure.

Well, of course, the best way to get to the bottom of this corporate

failure would be to proceed with the inquiry that has already been

promised. Which is specifically intended to look into it, blood of

the loves inquiry. Will the Secretary of State undertake today

to get on and just do it? And while the Conservative manifesto promised

not to go ahead with it, a recent parliamentary answer to me indicated

government is still considering consultation. I hope this is another

of the Prime Minister's many have manifesto commitments. It is not too

late for her to do the right thing, and if she does go ahead with

Levinson two, she has our full support. The influence of Murdoch on

this Government is a matter of serious concern. The First Secretary

of State refused to deny this week ripped Rupert Murdoch had as the

Prime Minister to put the right honourable member for Surrey Heath

back in the Cabinet. I expected the allegation to be denied, it was not

denied, we will be drawing our own conclusions from that. I have

consistently, persistently asked the Secretary of State to publish the

minutes of the meeting between Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch in the

US in 2016, will she commit to do that now? The Secretary of State now

has the opportunity to demonstrate that we live in a democracy, not...

Will she now not make any decision until the House returns in

September? Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman asks a number

of questions and I will attempt to address as many as I can in the time

we have. It is worth me making the point again that I am acting in a

quad is I judicial basis under the terms of the enterprise act 2002.

And also reflecting in the behaviour that we have made as government

recommendations of sub Brian Leveson when he made his part one report and

was clear about the way government should operate in regard to media

mergers and we have been cognisant of those recommendations drought.

One thing I am required to do under the enterprise act is to act without

undue delay. In the interests of all parties. And I think that is why I

am here today, to say nothing I have seen so far has changed my mind, but

I am going to look at all representations I have received.

There are in the tens of thousands of representations, many of which

are identical to each other, but all of which do need to be looked at,

and I will look at them all to see what evidence they provide. I was

also clear that the Ofcom report on the commitment to broadcasting

standards test was clear, it was unequivocal, there were no grounds

on which I can refer. I am therefore looking if there is new evidence,

new substantive evidence that comes to light following the statement I

made, and I'm going to make sure I looked at all those jobs and

nations, but in the interests of all parties, I will have to make a

decision in sufficiently speedy progress to make sure that we can do

with the in line with the enterprise act. That may mean I have to make a

decision before Parliament returns, which is why I am here today, to be

as open and transparent as I can and to make sure that I am as clear as I

can be with Parliament and with colleagues as to the situation.

I had sight of his letter this morning. As I understand it, he was

asking for a meeting to discuss the fit and proper report and I am

surprised that Ofcom are not able to meet to discuss the fit and proper

report. It is not part of the test that I look at. The tests under the

Enterprise Act are different. Ssm not fit and proper. The fit and

proper report analysis that Ofcom has to do has to be done on an

on-going basis. I am therefore surprised they are not willing to

meet The Right Honourable gentleman and other parliamentarians. I am

sure they will have heard my comments on that matter in the

House. In terms of meetings that ministers have or have with

journalists are minuted, sorry are recorded and they are in the public

domain as to the meetings they've has. I will make sure I am as open

and transparent as I can be. That is why I am here today. I was hoping

that it would be possible to make a firmer decision today, but the

quantity and volume of reputations received means that has not been

possible. Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I commend

my Right Honourable friend for not becoming party to the socialist

vendetta against the Murdoch family and ask her when considering media

plurality, whether she will bear in mind when Sky launched there were

four channels and there are now hundreds and that the real opponent

of media plurality is the bloated BBC tax-payer funded? Mr Speaker, I

know you do not wish me to stray into the grounds of the BBC. So I

will not respond on that particular point. There were firm grounds in

the offcome report that I asked them to prepare as part of the phase one

inquiry that there were concerns about media plurality. I think it is

important that in the absence of further reputations or further

evidence to change my view on that, I am still minded to refer on the

basis of plurality so the authority can investigate, should I decide a

final decision to refer, can flush out all those points. Thank you very

much. I would like to join colleagues by wishing you a very

good summer recess and your excellent staff around the House.

Everyone on this benches wishes you well for the summer recess. Also I

would like to congratulate women's women for a resounding win last

night, a 6-1 result was good. It was not enough on this occasion. I thank

the Secretary of State for advanced sight of her statement. She will be

aware of my specific constituency concern around this that Sky is the

largest private employer and my constituents who work at Sky will

want to know that any deal is properly scrutinised and their jobs

will be secure for the future. Mr Speaker, three weeks ago the Ofcom

report stated the public had concerns about the concentration of

media ownership in fewer hands. We share the public's concern over this

and the deligs of media content. At the fact the Secretary of State was

minded to refer to on the grounds of diminishing plurality in the media.

We are sure that would have boosted public confidence and very much go

forward. We are very disappointed that there has been no final

decision. We understand that the need to examine reputations from all

parties. The fact a decision will like I will be made during summer

recess, it speaks to a developing pattern, Mr Speaker, that we have

seen during the election with major decisions being made. It is not good

governance. It means it has been kicked into the long grass. Members

in this House will not get an opportunity to scrutinise a

decision. The committees of the House are yet to sit and there

should be an opportunity for those relevant committees to scrutinise

any decision made. Recognising the plurality and transparency within

the media should be one of the Secretary of States key motivations.

It seems a decision will not be subjected to maximum transparency in

terms of telling the House. Can she commit to making a decision when the

House is back over sum irrecess so we can properly -- summer recess to

we can properly scrutinise the deal. May I join the lady in

congratulating the England women. As an England woman I am delighted to

see the result. The honourable lady I no ehas a

constituent interest with Sky being the largest employer in her

constituency. I too want to make sure this merger is properly

scrutinised and dealt with so we can have certainty for employees like

hers. But when she says that we have shied away from taking decisions

with false scrutiny, this is simply not the case. For example, I had

originally asked offcome to report to me on May. I delayed that so that

I could make sure I came to the House when sky reported rather than

it being during the election campaign. I had hoped to be here

today making a final decision. The sheer volume of reputations, all of

which I need to go through, despite the fact that a very, very large

number are an ied den the Ial campaign e-mail means I cannot make

that decision today. But I do have to make that decision in, with due

consideration of time because there are parties to the merger and it is

important for them and for all concerned that a decision is taken.

THE SPEAKER: It is also I think the Secretary of State's first

appearance at the box since the Wimbledon final last Sunday. I am

sure she'll want to congratulate the great Roger Federer on his new

record - the latest of many records, established be I the great man over

the last 14 years. You've got time.

Thank you Mr Speaker. And may I thank the Secretary of State for the

openness and transparency at the heart of this statement. Media

plurality is vital. Transparency is vital. On the issue of pay within

all media, will the Secretary of State like to remind all employers

we do have equal pay laws for people for all backgrounds doing the same

job to be paid equally? Mr Speaker, of course I will join you in

congratulating Roger Federer. I was lucky enough to see him play on

Friday. I know you were there as well. I also think I should

congratulate Lewis Hamilton. I was at the Grand Prix and I was able to

congratulate Mr Lewis personally on his great success for British Grand

Prixes in a row is a fantastic achievement. I am sure the whole

House will join me in celebrating. What is turning into the most

incredible summer of sport for Britain and British athletes and

Roger Federer is almost an honorary Brit at this stage. I agree with my

honourable friend. I think Wimbledon is one of the places that does have

equal pay for men and women. I want to see gender disparity removed from

all employers. I too was as surprised as she was by yesterday's

annual report. I think the Culture Secretary has shown why she has an

enviable job in Government. She is the minister for tickets as well as

many other things. Can I wish you a happy summer, Mr Speaker and your

staff, in what seems to be the fashion. Can I welcome what she said

about plurality. Can I welcome what she said also to offcome about

meeting me and colleagues about the fit and proper issue? Can I say on

broadcasting standards she needs to make this decision in a timely way,

but my case is there are detailed issues for her to look at. She said

in a statement to this House when she invited prep reputations that

she needed new evidence on Ofcom's approach. The argument of myself and

other Right Honourable colleagues is that the approach is flawed and she

needs to do what they didn't, which is to look at the evidence on the

basis of the right legal threshold including Fox and News of the World.

Look at the evidence of James Murdoch, which she asked them to

look at and they failed to look at and the waiter concerns about Sky

News coming like Fox News. That will take a bit of time. On those

grounds, as well as parliamentary accountability and the wish she

shown all the way along to be accountable and open to Parliament

on this issue that the beginning of September she can come back, after

having a good summer and scrutinising the issues and telling

us her decision. It is the right thing to do. She shouldn't give into

the old Murdoches, which is to try and bully people into making wrong

decisions and rush decisions. Mr Speaker, can I wish, I should

wish you a happy summer. It would appear it is the order of the day.

And Roger, yes, of course! But I'm here today to be as transparent as I

can be. I said in my statement I may make a decision over the course of

the summer recess. It may take longer. I am taking the time to look

at all representations, including the reputation from The Right

Honourable gentleman and The Right Honourable gentleman and the other

Right Honourable gentleman who isn't here to make sure we do consider all

those points. I will look at the evidence and make a decision on the

basis of the evidence. In my Right Honourable friend's last statement

she emphasised it would be the evidence she would be looking at and

it would be the quality of that evidence, not the quantity of

evidence. She's already said in this statement that part of the delay is

the volume of communication that she has received. She's talked acted

tens of thousands already. Can she give some sort of indication to the

House of those tens of thousands, what percentage actually were

roughly original items of evidence and what was simply 38 degrees or

other similar e-mails which which are all identical. Those which

have been coded, a large number were identical responses. I said in my

previous statement it would not be those that shouted the loudest but

would provide the evidence I would look at. It is a shame, there was

one occasion where I opened my inbox in the morning to find I had 10,000

unread messages, all of which were identical and on this matter, that

gets in the way of me being able to represent my constituents, whose

message was, can simply get lost in those tens of thousands. I have to

look at those reputations. It is a shame for people, who in good faith,

want to have their voice heard, that they actually get drowned out by

those who simply press a button and send an automatic message. Can the

Secretary of State reassure the House she will not proceed to a

decision until she's received a report from the Information

Commission that the 13 million data sets that will be handed over to Fox

as a result of the takeover cannot be misused or miss aplayed for --

miss-applied for political purposes. She knows this is a concern which

has been raised recently by members of another place. I am aware of

those concerns. From innovation sorry I have moved on from industry

and industrial strategy. He will know the Enterprise Act of 2002 and

the piece of evidence on which I can look. It is clear on the public

interest test what evidence I can look at.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Secretary of State agree with me

that British broadcasting regulations mean a hype per teethal

Fox News UK would be different from the US version? Broadcasters in the

UK have to comply with the code. There are strict rules and

regulations. They are regulated by offcome. It is a very different

landscape from other countries. Mr Speaker, this is the second urgent

question today, where the issues have been about openness and

transparency and trust. The importance of obtaining that public

trust and buying into the decision that the Secretary of State is about

to be made, is it comes back to Parliament. Absolutely essential it

comes back to Parliament. The BBC, who has never been investigated, for

phone hacking and other breaches of hop -- of honesty and... I wanted to

be able to make a decision before the House rose for the summer

recess. It has not been possible. I will take time to look at the

reputations and make sure we do make the right decision. My minded

decision to come to the House that I came to the House to speak about has

not changed. First, I thank the minister for her

statement. Does the minister appreciate media, where there are

real concerns, that has helped my many in this House, if not all in

this House. Will the minister allay those concerns and fears in relation

to impartiality of the media? Broadcasting, including the BBC, is

regulated by Ofcom, there is an obligation on all broadcasters to be

impartial and where the honourable gentleman feels that not to be the

case, can he alert Ofcom to that situation and copy me in so I am

aware of those concerns? Can act as the Secretary of State, there is a

great deal of disappointment she has not yet committed to come back to

the House to explain the Parliament is to allow full scrutiny and

transparency which she herself says is so important to this. The need

for speed, it should not undermine the democratic process. Can she

reassure us she will not allow that to happen? Madam Deputy Speaker, I

have been as transparent as I possibly can be within the confines

of the Parliamentary calendar, but the Parliamentary calendar cannot be

allowed to dictate what happens in the quasi-judicial role I have a

Secretary of State. But I have been as open and transparent as I can be

and will continue to be and I will ensure Parliament is fully informed

of any decisions I take, and I am always happy when Parliament is

sitting to come to this chamber and to be scrutinised and the decisions

taken. Thank you, Madam Deputy chair. Thank you to the sedative

spate and for the first part of his statement, which was about --

deferring the decision -- the Secretary of State. If you do have a

problem with your e-mail, such as getting 10,000 from people such as

30 degrees, I will happily take your ticket to Wimbledon so you can spend

more time in the office! All will echo the comments of the right

honourable gentleman for West Bromwich and Doncaster North, this

is such a serious issue for everybody and certainly for our

public. There is clear evidence of significant corporate failure. And

dare I say, issues of corporate governance. This takes much more

time and given the gravity and seriousness of this, we cannot rely

on just receiving some postcards notifying us of this disposition. I

would urge the Secretary of State, please wait six weeks and give us

the decency of a decision to this House. As I say, commercial

decisions, the quasi-judicial process, the terms of the Enterprise

Act, they are not defined by the Parliamentary calendar. If I do make

a decision before Parliament returns, I will go through the

processes as previously of notifying leaders and speakers are both

houses, the chair of the Select Committee and the honourable

gentleman from West Bromwich East. It may be the case it is when I

return. I simply do not want the House to be in any expectation one

way or the other. Dennis Skinner. If she had to make the decision today,

what is in her mind? Is she for it or against it? By the way, I should

have welcomed the honourable gentleman back to this chamber, so

my apologies. My decision so far is, I am minded to refer on the basis of

media plurality. That decision has not moved. I have not yet made a

final decision. Whilst I appreciate the secular

state's of sending me a letter during the recess if she does make a

decision, it is never the same as seen her in person. Which she commit

to make herself available to the Select Committee in September to

discuss the detail of her handling of this if a decision is made by

them? Can I again congratulate the honourable gentleman in his

re-election back to the chair of the digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee? I'm always happy to be called by the Select Committee

to give evidence. Order! Business statement, the Leader of the House,

Andrea Leadsom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The

business for the week commencing the 4th of September will be Monday the

4th of September the health -- the House will not be sitting, Tuesday

the 5th of September, consideration in committee and remaining is the

ages of the telecommunications, infrastructure, relief from

nondomestic rates bill. Wednesday the 6th of September, emotion to

improve ways and means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.

Thursday the 7th of September, the second reading of the European Union

withdrawal bill, day one. Friday the 8th of September, the House will not

be sitting. The provisional business for the week commencing the 11th of

September will include on Monday the 11th of September conclusion of the

second reading of the European Union withdrawal bill, day two. I should

also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for

the 7th of September will be Thursday the 7th of September,

debate on the transparency of the BBC, followed by a debate on 16-19

education funding. I should like to congratulate all those members from

across the House who presented their Private Members' Bills yesterday. I

know that many are on subjects members care deeply about. I wish

them well. I can confirm that through the usual channels, the

opposition have been offered an opposition day in the short

September sitting and we plan to provide further opposition days in

October and November. Finally, as this is the last business questions

before the summer recess, may I send my best wishes to you and colleagues

across the House for a productive and also a restorative summer break

from Parliament? I should also like to thank the hard-working staff of

the House whose efforts in supporting as I know greatly

appreciated by colleagues both on these benches and those opposite. I

am sure the House will join the Leader of the House and thanking the

hard-working staff who look after us so well and wish them a restful time

over the summer, without us. Thank you, can I thank the Leader of the

House for the forthcoming business. I am afraid I have not been informed

of any opposition day, not even a careless whisper. But let me make it

clear again that the opposition had to call a debate on Monday because

there was no discussion between the Government on our right to have

those opposition days. The Government could have said coming

yes, have your opposition day on Monday. This is a government

struggling to get a grip. Backbenchers are calling for the

sacking of the donkey ministers, Tory grandees describing them as

ferrets in a sack. EU know the current government is without

authority and the premise to having to call for calm, is this the image

of a come -- country we want to present to the world? They do not

want to debate policy issues, they would rather discuss the leadership

crisis, but we on the side already have our chairs in place and

membership of our committees. The chairs could have called a meeting

this week to set out their programme and then had a session in the next,

meeting in the next session. The public cannot even present their

petitions. In the excellent speech right honourable friend the member

for Bristol North West made, he said this is a group of middle age men

attempting to take over from a lame-duck Prime Minister. Leader of

the House confirm she is one of the group trying to take over and she

did not support her Prime Minister in saying she was not a lame-duck

Prime Minister. Still the nasty party! This obviously is a Portillo

moment. Not putting in the phone lines, but a run on Sim cards. I

will contrast that with seven years of a government that is not working

for the many. With our vision for all stages of life spelt out in 124

pages of a manifesto that is still on its third reprint. The electorate

believed us, not the robotic, tautological mantras, that is why we

need an opposition debate, to clarify some myths. Who actually is

responsible for the financial crash? Not the Labour Party. The United

States investment bank, they collapsed in 2008 and in September

2008, but Lehman Brothers collapsed. It was cheap money, House price and

remember sub by mortgages? And a debate on the NHS, please... Last

week, there was a point of order suggesting the honourable member

foot Ewing suggested it was a Labour institution, he said it was a Labour

created institution and I refer you to chapter ten, page 133, the

creation of the NHS. Contrast that with the book by the Secretary of

State for Health, he wants to privatise the NHS. What about a

debate on the other myth that the deficit is larger and the Labour

government? The deficit is the difference between what the

Government spends and receives and according to the House of Commons

library, based on OBR figures, the sum of all ONS deficits between 1997

and 2010 was 434 billion, 506 billion after adjusting for

inflation. But the sum of all annual deficits between 2010 and 2017 was

690 billion, 728 billion after adjusting for inflation. I want to

mention, as women seem to be in the news recently, some notable women

who have passed away recently. Simone Veil, she was sent to

Auschwitz and she was passionate about peace in Europe and became the

first President of the European Parliament and established a woman's

right to choose and a very serious circumstances. Sheila Michaels. The

first woman under 40 to win the Fields medal for mathematics. Mary

Turner, trade unionist. She fought everybody to have a better life.

From starting her working life as a dinner lady to being President of

the GMB and the TUC and chair of the Labour Party, she was a giant of the

labour movement. She was formidable and I can only remember her smiling

and she will be sadly moved Nationalist. Their inspiration lives

and in the six schoolgirls from the Afghan robotics team who took the

silver medal in the first global robotics event. England's cricket

team in the World Cup final. And the football team in Euro 2017 this

Sunday. The honourable member for Livingston played alongside some of

the Scottish team and maybe she should have been in the team! This

month, we celebrate 100 years of the women's Army auxiliary Corps, not

only can we drive trains, we are now driving the Tardis! I want to thank

everyone from the speakers office to yourself the Speaker and the other

Deputy Speakers and the office. The office of the clerks, the

doorkeepers, everybody who makes our life very easy. Hansard, the House

of Commons library and all our staff, everyone. I want to say to

every single honourable member on all sides, we had a very difficult

time during the lockdown and we went straight into the general election.

It has been very difficult and so wish every single member new and old

a very peaceful and restful summer. Thank you, and may I join with the

honourable lady in celebrating the achievements of women are not least

of which yourself in the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable

lady opposite, and may I also welcome her honourable friends to

her place as the new shadow Deputy Leader and a very much wish her

every success and look forward to working with her. I would add one of

the great lady to that lovely list I am delighted to join in celebrating,

Jane Austen, who features on the new ?10 note which is one of our

greatest living authors. Latest ever authors! Greatest ever authors! It

is fantastic at last we are starting to recognise... Many of us probably

wish she were still living! I share the sentiment. I would like to point

out again that it has been a problem that the opposition has looked to

criticise process at a time where in fact this has just been business as

usual in a new Parliament. The general election took place in June,

we have had 18 sitting days in this term, six of them were given over to

the Queen's Speech debate whether topics for debate were selected by

the opposition, which leaves 12 sitting days during which time we

have had three debates on the standing order 24, ten urgent

questions, 17 adjournment debates, 90 oral statements, 21 departmental

question times and this is our fifth and hopefully feisty business

questions session in this chamber, and I'm sure the honourable lady, as

I do, will absolutely look forward to the normal committees of the

House, starting up and running as soon as we get back in September.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I thank the Leader of the House for

the efforts that she is making to get business on track as quickly as

possible? And may we have an assurance that as the Select

Committee memberships are finally going to be settle on the first day

back, which is the Tuesday, that the relevant motion will be tabled at

the earliest possible opportunity, namely the Wednesday, so that we can

have meetings in the first week back, which would enable us bent to

get approval, possibly even for a public hearing in the normal way, in

the second week back rather than having to wait until October?

My honourable friend raises a point that we all share in terms of the

need to get the Select Committees up and running. He'll be aware the 1922

Committee have some say in holding the elections on this side. We are

all very keen to see them up and running. I am sure they will be as

soon as possible. The House for announcing the

business of their fortnight. As we break for the recess in a matter of

a few hours we don't have the Select Committees up and running. We don't

know what the arrangements are for standing committees. If every single

piece of business had to be taken oh the floor of this chamber. We have

always done it. I have never known a Parliament so lax in putting

together a normal structure and arrangements for the House. So the

leader should vow and pledge when we come back one of her priorities will

be to get this House working properly and to get the structure in

place. At least then they made it to the summer recess pretty much in

tact and with a Prime Minister in place. I don't know a party more in

need of a holiday. Maybe a couple of weeks in the sun may quell their

feuding desire. And it might bring a temporary ceasefire so some of the

briefings across Whitehall. This might be the last summer, bar one,

that we will have the ordinary freedom of movement right across

Europe. There might be all sorts of special arrangements put in place

for our constituents, starting 2019 as they try and enjoy their time on

the Costas. As we see the repel book coming forward the reality of a hard

Brexit is moving closer and closer. We should make sure we enjoy our

holidays unworried about freedom of movement. On that, can I wish you

the best possible summer recess the office of the speaker and all her

staff, I want to extend that to the leader of the House, and my friend,

the Shadow Leader of the House, on the Labour benches. As a team we've

done not too badly in the course of the last few weeks. Can I extend

that to staff across this House. I think we have now become accustomed

to being looked after so dill againly and so well. And of course

to all my colleagues, it's been one hell of a year we've been through.

Can I wish them all well during the course of the next few weeks. Well,

I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for his remarks. I think

we all share that desire to come back, ready to go, having had a

break and with a new vigour towards making the most of leaving the EU in

a way that works for all of the United Kingdom. Obviously, as we

know the ne goishations will be -- negotiations will be tough. It will

be we work together to achieve that success. As I said privately and in

this chamber, I am very keen to work across the House and to enable ways

to improve on the legislation and to ensure that we get the best possible

deal for the United Kingdom. Thanks to the Prime Minister's insistence

that anybody who earns over 150,000 and works for the BBC that their

salaries ought to be declared. A gentleman who plays Charlie in

casualtierns up to ?400 thousand -- Casualty ?4,000 a year. Someone who

is a real nurse earn earns around ?23,000. There is a double

injustice. Somebody who makes real life and death decisions on a daily

basis earns a fraction of somebody who is playing somebody who makes

life and death decisions. Perhaps we would top slice from the license fee

and pay it to the National Health Service to people who do deserve

better salaries. We've had a lot of discussions about

public sector pay and people just about managing. I has been a

difficult number of years since this Government has been trying to deal

with the deficit and the debt that we were left in 2010. And it has

been a case of trying to balance giving decent pay rises to our

public sector workers who do such a good job for us, verses trying to

make sure that we live within our means. As to his point about BBC pay

and the pay of actors and so on, it's absolutely right that on this

side of the House we have urged transparency in pay. We were

successful in boardroom pay and now with the BBC salaries I think all

members will want to see more clarity around what's fair to both

women and men, as well as what is fair between different public sector

workers. This morning university's minister has delivered a major

speech to a think-tank called Reform setting out major developments in

the higher education and research Act. He did that not having laid an

oral statement in this House, not having laid a of written statement

in this House and not having spent any time in his 32-minute speech on

this whole area yesterday, alluding to them. Madam Deputy Speaker we

might think that this is a contempt and abuse of this House. And the way

in which it is the second year running that this Government has

tried to make major statements about higher education on the last day of

term w the intention of evading scrutiny. Therefore, I ask the

leader of the House, if she will prevail upon the university's

minister or a minister in this House to come to this House today and

explain why, for example, they are going to make major changes in terms

of teaching excellence framework and the office for students. The whip

says from that, the mission is far too long. We've had fair too

little... THE SPEAKER: Order! We

Make sure that they turn up to say something about that this morning.

As to the substantive point about a speech that the university ministers

has given, that of course, there was a debate in this chamber yesterday

for three hours. And so the honourable gentleman will be aware

he talked about current policy. I would like to point out to the

honourable gentleman that the record of universities under this

Government has been exemplary with more students going to university

and particularly students from disadvantaged backgrounds, up over

40%, since 2010. I would like to point out the honourable gentleman

criticises the number of written statements brought forward at the

end of term. In 2007 there were 30 written statements. In 2008, 30

written statements. 2009, 33 written statements. Today, I believe there

are 22. And of course, as he will appreciate, it's vital to many

departments that they bring forward important...

THE SPEAKER: Order! The honourable gentleman asked a serious question.

The Leader of the House is answering it. It is simply rude to shout.

Leader of the House! Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The

point I was trying to make is the point he will know, as all members

will know, it is important that honourable members get the chance to

see the last update possible before the end of, before when the House

rises so they have the latest information department by

department. Motion 189 on the hearing in Florida has supported

many members. Can I suggest that the Leader of the House the Foreign

Office is encouraged to work with Reprieve to help Americans decide

that it is a point to release. Can we ask for a debate on the reform

and sector regulation. We need to make sure that the Ministry Ministry

of Justice, and the abuses are stamped out and effective advice is

given to those who are doing the abuse and those who benefit when it

has enned. When it has ended. I am not aware. He there is a debate this

afternoon. He may want to raise the point then. Dangerous driving is a

blight on the roads of my constituency in Bradford South. The

Ministry Ministry of Justices commitment to... On the roads 1st

February, 2017. Is the Leader of the House aware when the outcome of this

consultation will be published? Will she make in parliamentary time

available to debate this important matter? The honourable lady raises a

critical point about dangerous driving. She is right. Many of us

have experienced the awful tragedies of dangerous driving and the

outcomes of them. I will certainly look into when we can expect to see

a response on her behalf. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The special

rapature for the UN human rights council published a report recently

following his recent visit, in which he described progress in fulfilling

resolution 30/1 as being slow and the use of torture in Sri Lanka as

endemic. Can we have a debate on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka

in the lead-up to the next session of the UNCHR in the autumn? Well, my

honourable friend's done a lot of work in this area. May I

congratulate him on his new position as chairman of the all party

parliamentary group. The minister for South Asia has raised concerns

at the findings with the Sri Lankan High Commissioner this week and the

FCO's annual human rights report, published today, sets out our full

assessment of the situation. Can I assure my honourable friend that we

continue to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to deliver against all

its UN human rights commitments. Recently emerged that the Orthodox

Church has been... A detention, appearing at a mass on 16th July,

follow. The mass was builded as reconciliation and release of his

detention. According to local sources, he was surrounded by

guards, did not speak at the event and make no statement about the

supposed reconciliation. This has led to many to believe he's not been

released but sudden reappearance is an attempt by the Government to

alleviate international pressure. Can I ask for a statement on the

Government and the trained Government on his detention, it

still does exist. Well the honourable gentleman, as he often

does raises a very important human rights issue. I do urge him to take

that up at the next Foreign Office Questions as a very specific issue

that those ministers will be able to respond to. Whilst I welcome the

clarity we have on phase 2-B of the rail project, I am sure my Right

Honourable friend will agree it is unacceptable that my residents, some

of whom have lived the same home for over 40 years are being offered just

two-thirds of the value of their property. Will my Right Honourable

friend consider debate after summer recess in Government time to

scrutinise the property compensation schemes which are now on offer? My

honourable friend raises a very important issue about compensation

for those affected. And as somebody who is has taken up a number of

constituency cases in my own constituency I am very sympathetic

to her. I am aware the Secretary of State for Transport has said he will

take up individual cases and I do urge her to contact him on her

specific points. Two women a week are murdered at the

hands of their current or ex-partner, many of whom have

previous histories of abuse and stalking. The Home Office produced a

consultation paper last December, recommending new legislation

including a stalker's register. In the Queen's speech this year

domestic violence was mentioned. We have seen no legislation of this

issue nearly a year after consultation. Isn't it time the

Government found time to debate this and allow the who US to vote on this

issue. It is a very, very serious situation.

Yes, he is right. It is an incredibly serious issue. He will

know it is an absolute priority for the Prime Minister to try and tackle

the horrors of domestic violence and domestic abuse. It is something

mentioned in the Queen's Speech as legislation that we do intend to

bring forward in this session. The Leader of the House agrees with

me that strengthening families and giving every child the best start in

life is very much the business of government. Given the costs of

family breakdown and the impact early years and family relationships

can have on children's mental health and life chances. A number of

colleagues on the side of the House will bring forward a families

manifesto in the first week of September, after the recess,

providing government with practical and realistic policies which could

make a significant difference in this area. Could Parliamentary time

be found to debate this important issue in the days after the recess?

I cannot agree more with my honourable friend, and I really do

commend her for the work she is doing. She and I share a passion for

all children to have the very best start in life and I would to see her

families' manifesto when it is published. She will be pleased to

know that all departments are committed to making progress,

including the Department for health, which is committing an additional

1.4 billion for mental health services for children, young people

and new mothers for this Parliament. Something that will make a huge

difference to families. We are too late for implementation on the

refund of tax to galleries announced in the budget of March 20 16. A

library in my constituency applied to this and they were successful

less dear but they are still waiting for the Government to act and it was

supposed to come into force in June. Glasgow women's library will lose

tens of thousands if they cannot claim back and backdate the VAT

under this provision for capital works they have carried out. Can she

give certainty as to when this SI will come before the House and when

other galleries and museums listed, affecting about 30 across the UK, or

when they will be able to make use of this provision? Cannibal lady is

raising a very important point which clearly has significant importance

-- the honourable lady. If she writes to me, I will look into it

further. But my right honourable friend consider a debate on

electoral full -- fraud, including double voting? I do realise that the

Electoral Commission watches as carefully, but such a debate just

might concentrate the minds. Yes, this is a very important point. We

have one of the oldest and proudest democracies in the world and it is

very important that we continue to have rigorous electoral processes

that cannot be fraudulently abused. And I am quite sure that my right

honourable friend will find a way to have that debate, and I do encourage

him to do that. The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that

today, the transport Secretary has issued a written statement saying

electrification will now not take place between Cardiff and Swansea.

This has a huge significance not just for my constituency, but across

the South Wales belt. Can the Leader of the House Fine Time when we

returned for the transport Secretary to come to the floor of the House

and explain why this promise has been broken to the people of Wales,

despite multiple promises of the transport Secretary and the Welsh

Secretary? Well, our decisions on electrification reflect how Francis

in technology are enabling a different approach that is less

disruptive to passengers and communities. Specifically, on the

Cardiff to Swansea route. We're not proceeding with the litigation at

the present time, but we are to build a better and bigger railway

for Wales so passengers in Wales will see the benefits of

electrification sooner, went brand-new and more... The owner of a

gentleman is clearly not listening, perhaps he does not want to hear the

answer! There is a very clear and said that there will be benefits for

passengers in Wales as a result of brand-new and more spacious

intercity express trains which will begin to be introduced in October

2017. The state-of-the-art trains will make journeys faster, along the

route, sooner, without the need for wires and countries and the

disruption associated. So the advantages for passengers will be

felt sooner, and that is as a result of changes in technology. Thank you

very much. I know my right honourable friend will agree that

safeguarding democracy is absolutely vital to all. Therefore please make

time for the debate about the dangerous antics of Taunton Bay and

its leader John Williams, this council is trying to force a merger

which has not been properly consulted on and does not have

grounds for approval, and this is municipal rubbish! Can we please

have time so this carry on cannot be tolerated? We are proud of two

levels of government and the job they do, this is being roughshod in

this place and there should be time made available in government to

discuss this point and very important issue! My honourable

friend again raises an important local constituency matter and he may

well wish for an adjournment debate so he can explore it further.

Further to the remarks from the honourable member, can I say, can we

have an early debate about rail transport? From Rochdale, the

transport system is grossly inadequate, the quality and the

quantity of rail is not acceptable for a town like Rochdale. We do need

an early statement, an early debate, so the Transport Secretary can

explain what the Government strategy is for Wales and also for the North

of England. I am sure the honourable gentleman will recognise that this

Government has put billions into new road and rail projects. It continues

to do that. He may well wish with his front bench to choose an

opposition Day opportunity to debate that matter if he wishes to do so,

but I have tried to explain to his honourable friend that we are

looking at what improvements technology can offer ahead of the

disruption that the litigation would undoubtably cause the passengers as

it was installed. My right honourable friend is, I know, aware

of the problem with sleeping shifts for care workers and the crisis is

looming for a number of companies involved because HMRC is demanding

extremely large payments, there is no time for a debate or a statement

on this, so would she raise it with her colleagues in government, in the

Treasury, and indeed in business, to ensure that this crisis was averted?

My honourable friend raises a very important issue and I would like to

take this opportunity to pay tribute to all of those many care workers

who do such a fantastic job looking after elderly and disabled people.

And he is right to raise it, and it certainly is something the

Department is looking very carefully at.

Can we have a debate in government is time on UK relations with Turkey?

Given that the foreign and Commonwealth of this has failed to

meet the two month timetable for responding to the report of the

Foreign Affairs Select Committee published on the 25th of March, and

given the select committees are not likely to be able to do with this

matter for some time it is it not incredibly important that the

Government explains whether it is supporting the mass arrests and

purges going on at this moment in Turkey and the arrests of Members of

Parliament, and does not hide behind the fact we have not yet set up the

select committees. Well, I say again to the honourable gentleman that he

will no doubt want to raise that at the next Foreign Office questions.

And the House raises today, and he may also like to raise it at the

prerace says adjournment debate that pre-recess. But he can write to the

Department for their specific advice on it. The staff of Parliament have

been thanked by many members during the day's session, and quite

rightly. But I have heard a rumour that the police officers who serve

us so well and part the Parliamentary family may be moved

after a five-year stint. I think many honourable and right honourable

members enormously valuable continuity of service that we get

from the police constables and will my right honourable friend used to

influence and every effort to ensure those who have served us for a long

time are able to stay? My honourable friend is exactly right to mention

the police and how well they look after is in this place, and

obviously, our thanks and gratitude extends to them. On the other hand,

he will appreciate fully that how the police operate on the Palace

grounds is an operational matter and it is something that whilst we are

involved as an interested party, it is nevertheless for the police to

decide how to manage their operations.

I have repeatedly asked for clarity on let your vacation to Swansea, a

succession of transport secretaries and secretaries of State for Wales

has said I need only look out of the train window to see a

electrification was on its way. Today, sneaked out in a statement,

my worst fears have been realised and re-elect vocation is not coming

to Swansea. Could the Leader of the House ensure the transport Secretary

Commons before the House to explain to my constituents and the people of

Wales which he has misled them regarding this issue? --

electrification is not coming to Swansea. Can I say very gently that

there is no such thing as sneaking out a statement. It is a statement,

it is designed to inform the House. And the reason why a statement goes

out before the House rises is because all secretaries of State and

ministers are very conscious of the need to keep the House informed as

far as possible whilst the House is sitting. With regards to her

substantive point, as I have said to her honourable friend, the point is

that as technology changes, there are earlier ways to improve

passenger services for Welsh train users. And it is therefore vital

that we seize those opportunities to deliver improvements earlier, in a

more cost-effective way, and with less disruption to passenger

services. Many of my constituents were

delighted to see the Queen's Speech in the obstruction of trade,

agriculture and fisheries bills within it and many across the West

Country. -- the introduction. But the Question Time for trade,

Department for Exiting the European Union is still some of the shortest

in this Parliament. Could I ever read of the House in her previous

role as the Secretary of State for the environment, whether she would

consider extending the time period in this important time as we read

the EU? My honourable friend shares a big passion as I do for the

success of the agricultural and fishing section as we leave the EU

and there are huge opportunities and he is a keen advocate. All of the

timings for oral westerns are kept under review and adjusted as demand

for them changes so I can assure him that will be considered in due

course -- questions. She has already heard from some of my colleagues

about the furious in South Wales and Rochdale and not least in the East

Midlands and Nottingham about the Government's reneging on promises

that were made about rail electrification. There were clear

promises made about this. It was not just, it might happen. Communities

were promised, rail Communities were promised, MPs were promised. And the

Secretary of State for Transport should come to this House and

explained to each and everyone was and these communities why it is that

he has gone back on this promise. So I urge the Leader of the House to go

and speak to the Secretary of State for Transport and tell him he needs

to make a statement at the earliest opportunity. We have had in Bessemer

denies, it is not good enough and the government has broken its

promises -- we have had investment denied. I am slightly astonished

that members opposite do not seem to appreciate the decisions on

electrification reflect how advances in technology are enabling a

different approach that is less disruptive to passengers and the

communities. In particular, train technology offers seamless transfer

from diesel powered the electric that is undetectable to passengers

and means we no longer need to electrify every line in order to

achieve the same significant improvements to journeys. Members

opposite should welcome the fact that technology advances means that

there is less disruption to passengers, that improvements are

delivered sooner, and improvements can be delivered in the same way as

electrification would offer. I was disappointed that Monday's

debate on abuse and intimidation during the recent general election

run out of time and did not happen, not least because I wanted to raise

the issue in my constituency of graffiti and bridges and walls, so

can the Leader of the House update us as to whether we will have

another general debate and whether there will be an opportunity in

government time for this matter to be discussed?

It was very disappointing that the opposition choose to squeeze it out

earlier in the week. The vile abuse that candidates suffered during the

election is unacceptable and is a real threat to our democracy. We

will look to reschedule this debate after the summer recess, possibly as

early as September. On rail electrification it is clear the

Transport Secretary broken the word of the Prime Minister. We have now a

situation where larger, heavier diesel trains will run to Cardiff,

then switch on their diesel engine at Cardiff, which is not

environmentally-friendly. Will she admit the Public Accounts Committee

has a solution, namely this project, this ?2 billion over budget and a

year delayed because the Department for Transport bought the trains

before laying the track and didn't anticipate bridges in the way. It is

the incompetence of the Transport Secretary which has led to a slap in

the face of the people of Swansea and Wales. Will she admit it? Will

she answer questions, rather than the cloak of darkness, push out

these press releases which mislead people? I do not, for the life of

me, see why the honourable gentleman is refusing to acknowledge that

earlier improvements for passengers with less disruption can possibly be

a slap in the face. What the transport department is

acknowledging is that technology is enabling them to deliver less

disruption and earlier improvements for passengers. Growing public anger

at the BBC is made worse by the fact that they know the BBC is funded by

a highly regressive television tax. Can we have an early debate, not

just on the accountability of the BBC, but also on the funding of the

BBC, with a view to getting rid of the television tax, which at the

moment results in some 10% of all cases in the magistrates' court and

impacts upon women. 70% of the victims of that tax are women. My

honourable friend is absolutely right that as a public service

broadcaster, funded by the license fee, the BBC has a responsibility to

set an example for others and lead the way for promoting equality in

the workplace. He may wish to have a further debate on how the licence

fee is working. He will be aware that the recent debates on the BBC

charter took up that very issue, only in the recent past. But if he

wanted to seek further discussions he could do so through a Westminster

Hall or adjournment debate. My 18-year-old constituent is serverly

diabetic and has been battling for two years. He's won two appeals but

the Secretary of State is challenging the decision in court.

He wants to experience university in common with his peers. Can we have

an urgent debate to address the unfair practises towards those with

disabilities? Well, that sounds like a very sad case, and certainly all

members do have cases that they take up on behalf of their constituents

and from this dispatch box I do urge people who have similar problems and

challenges to take to their MP, because I think very often we can

help individual cases. I am sure the honourable lady is taking this up

separately with the department. As to the bigger picture around

disability, the honourable lady will be aware that Conservatives are

absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and spending on

disability benefits will be higher in every year until 2020 that it was

in 2010. We spend over ?50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled

people and people with health conditions, which is up more than ?7

billion since 20106789 I think we have a good track record. I

absolutely accept there are always individual cases that we, as

representatives, need to take up on behalf of our constituents. Like all

honourable members I care passionately about the future of my

local hospital. The hospital's trust in Telford has spent four years

deliberating over plans to invest in the future of hospital services, but

regrettably the trust has been paralysed by indecision, and

complete failure to communicate with my constituents. The proposals have

descended into disarray with local MPs, clinicians losing confidence in

the management's ability to deliver. Can we have an urgent debate to

consider this important issue. Yes, I know this has been a great concern

for my honourable friend and I do commend her for raising this. I know

she's met with the senior responsible officers for the revised

timetable. I understand that the future fit programme board will meet

on 31st July to hear the outcome of the independent review and the work

relating to the women's impact assessment. The joint committee will

meet on 10th August, on the next steps, including public

consultation. She's right to keep raising this. Can we have a debate

on nuclear disarmament. My constituent is being held in HMPs

and his colleague after taking a part in a protest. Does she