Business of the House

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

The business for the week commencing 9 March will include:

Monday 9 March—Second Reading of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [Lords], followed by a general debate on the Commonwealth in 2020.

Tuesday 10 March—Remaining stages of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, followed by a general debate on LGBT+ health inequality and LBT women’s health week. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 11 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.

Thursday 12 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 13 March—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 March will include:

Monday 16 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 17 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 18 March—Opposition day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.

Thursday 19 March—Debate on a motion on Government response to the Morse review of the loan charge 2019, followed by a general debate on the Horizon settlement and future governance of Post Office Ltd. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 March—The House will not be sitting.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Is there any update on the list of ministerial responsibilities? He has given the business for the week of 16 March, but no departmental questions have been allocated. Will he say why that has not been forthcoming?

When will the Windrush lessons learned review and the report on Russian interference in UK democracy be published? The Leader of the House frequently says that the Prime Minister has seen it, but we are in a democracy—the last time I looked—and we would all like to have a look at that.

There is a debate in Westminster Hall today on Horizon. While this is an important topic, it will also be the subject of a Backbench Business Committee debate. I wonder whether there could be more co-ordination so that Members can contribute in the appropriate way.

We are all thinking about those who are suffering from the virus, covid-19. Can I ask for clarification through the Leader of the House from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care? Last week, he said that people must self-isolate on medical advice and that they will be entitled to sick pay. This week, he said that people have to self-certify for seven days, yet the incubation period is 14 days. I know that the Prime Minister said that everyone who is entitled to sick pay can get it from day one, but what is the position of those who we, as a country, are asking to self-isolate—those on zero-hours contracts and those, for example, who are not entitled to statutory sick pay? We know that the virus does not distinguish between who is on what sort of contract, so will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an urgent statement that whoever self-certifies in relation to the disease can get statutory sick pay from day one? Universal credit is not payable for five weeks.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that covid-19 is now a notifiable disease? I know that many small businesses have been affected by this and we need to know that that is also retrospective. The Secretary of State for Health has said that there is no additional funding and that there is no ring-fenced funding for local authorities. Tory-controlled councils such as Walsall council are using £10 million for consultants to try to show councillors how to build resilient communities. Is that a proper use of public money, where councillors are asked to build these communities with Lego? That is all the more reason why the money for this disease should be ring-fenced. The way to build a resilient community is, of course, to restore Pleck library, which cost only £800,000, to restore Palfrey Sure Start, to ensure that youth centres are open and, of course, to fund social care, which is a very important part of keeping people safe. So could we have a reassurance from the Chancellor that the money is emergency money to mitigate covid-19?

I join the right hon. Lady in sending our condolences to Lisa George. It is always a sadness when a former Member of this House dies, but obviously the greatest sadness is for the family and, as the hon. Lady says, may he rest in peace.

I agree with the hon. Lady on paying tribute to the Library. We are enormously well served by the Library, and I hope everybody will use World Book Day as an opportunity to spend more time reading. They might want to read a book on the Victorians, which is still available in all good bookshops, probably at a highly discounted price by now.

I want to answer the important question on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Foreign Office officials in Tehran continue to lobby for the release of all dual national detainees, and I understand that the Iranian ambassador to the UK confirmed on Tuesday that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was in good health and that she would be granted temporary release, so there is some slight good news at this stage. However, her family have understandably said that they wish to keep her symptoms under review and undertake any further testing as necessary. I reiterate my thanks to the right hon. Lady for raising this every week.

Inevitably, given that a reshuffle took place relatively recently, the list of ministerial responsibilities is being worked on, and will be released as soon as practicable. The list of oral questions is also being worked on because of changes in departmental responsibilities. It is important that we have the right questions to allow the Government to be held to account properly.

As far as I am aware, the Windrush report has not yet been delivered to the Home Office, but I am sure that the Home Office will review it in the normal way once it has been. The right hon. Lady also asked about the Russia report. The Committee has not yet been set up, but I have no doubt that when it has been, it will rush to publish the report. However, I remind her that the Prime Minister has said that it will probably be much less exciting than people think it will be. The joy of waiting for it is, perhaps, greater than the reality of what it will contain—not that I have seen it.

Alleluia!

I am glad that there is such rejoicing at that suggestion.

It was just one voice.

But it was one that represented many.

The public will expect Parliament to sit, and to get on with its job. Parliament has proved itself to be very resilient over the years. There is no medical reason, on current advice, to think that shutting Parliament would be necessary or helpful. I will repeat that: there is no medical reason, on current advice, to think that shutting Parliament would be necessary or helpful.

Our approach will be guided by the best scientific evidence and medical advice, and we will take all necessary measures to deal with this outbreak. I can assure the House that I am engaging with the parliamentary authorities to emphasise how important it is that any decisions are taken in line with the advice of the chief medical officer. A cross-parliamentary group of senior managers is meeting daily to plan the response to covid-19 and ensure business continuity, with input from Her Majesty’s Government. The Commission will consider an update at its meeting with the House of Lords Commission on Monday. I can reassure the House that we are taking this very seriously, and that we will act on professional medical advice.

When the capital city had a Conservative Mayor, he cut crime. May we have a debate on why the current Labour Mayor is failing to get a grip on the worrying rise in serious violent crime in London?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this point. It is extraordinary how effective the previous Mayor of London was in cutting crime; it is no surprise that he has gone on to even greater things—and it is no surprise that his socialist successor has failed to cut crime. I am glad to say that this Government will provide an extra 20,000 police officers, and are reinforcing stop-and-search powers to ensure that crime can be reduced across the country.

At a time when almost the entire country is focused on coronavirus and its implications, observers of our proceedings will find it strange that the matter does not appear on our agenda. Would it not be proper to have a discussion in the Chamber that gave the opportunity for more in-depth consideration than can be afforded by a series of 20-second questions to a Minister? I do not for one second suggest that we should try to second-guess the medical response to the virus—we should simply take the expert advice and make sure that the resources are available to implement it swiftly—but it is clear that there will be profound social and economic consequences from the virus that will require a public policy response from this Chamber. The sooner we start on that, the better.

I am thinking in particular of those companies that will be more affected by the virus than others. Obviously, there will be an effect on every company, but for some, particularly those producing public events, the difference will be between living and dying; the virus will potentially put them out of business. I am thinking of such events as the Edinburgh festival, which is important to not just the city but the entire Scottish and UK economy. Decisions on it are being taken now; the risks are being taken now. Those involved would take succour from Parliament deciding in principle, though perhaps not providing details, that support will be given to people engaged in these activities. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Leader of the House will know that on Monday, the House ran out of time to discuss a proposition from the Committee of Selection on the composition of the Scottish Affairs Committee—the rather bizarre proposal that the Conservative party’s representation on that Committee be increased, even though its representation in the country of Scotland as a whole reduced by 50% in the recent election. When will the House have the opportunity to conclude that debate, and when can we put amendments before the House to ensure that the composition of the Committee reflects political opinion in Scotland?

To answer the second part of the question first, it is of course very sad that the SNP decided to talk out the motion establishing a Scottish Affairs Committee. It is surprising that a party that calls itself the national party of Scotland does not want to have a Committee looking into Scottish affairs. The Government will of course deliberate and consider when it is right to bring forward a motion on the subject, but it is ironic that those who wish for more Scottish debate are those who decided not to have a Scottish Affairs Committee. I know a little bit, dare I say, about the procedures of this House, and I know when somebody is trying to talk something out, and that is exactly what happened. One might think, if it were not disorderly to suggest it, that the SNP were filibustering—to stop themselves having the opportunity to discuss things. It was a filibuster with remarkably little point.

You’re repeating yourself.

We are not playing “Just a Minute”; I am trying to answer serious questions.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is absolutely right about discussions of coronavirus. The Health and Social Care Secretary is committed to updating the House regularly. I think that is important and the best way of proceeding, because we are trying to proceed on the basis of medical, expert advice, and giving Members the opportunity to ask questions, so that advice can be given to a broader audience and more widely understood, is the right approach to take, though I hear his request for a debate. Obviously, if or when there is a need for emergency legislation, there will be a full debate on it.

Could I just say that I am expecting to run business questions until 11.15 am?

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on violent crime, last year, in the London Borough of Harrow, the number of notifiable offences rose to 17,329, up from 14,897 the year before. Meanwhile, our do-nothing Mayor spends his money, which he is given by the Government, on public relations and spin doctors. He has been given £5 billion to build 116,000 new homes across the capital, and has failed to do that, and yesterday a third of tube trains were running late because of faulty trains. Could we have a debate on the failures of this do-nothing Mayor?