Business of the House

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

The business for the week commencing 16 March will include:

Monday 16 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill.

Tuesday 17 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill.

Wednesday 18 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition—subject to be announced.

Thursday 19 March—General debate on progress in tackling climate change, followed by a debate on a motion on online harms. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 March includes:

Monday 23 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill.

Mr Speaker, let me start by associating myself with your remarks just now from the Chair. It is plain to all Members of the House that the Government Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip have badly mis-stepped. Indeed, there has been scant respect for the House more generally from the Government Whips Office. I cannot believe that such a thing would have happened when the Leader of the House was Chief Whip.

If I may, let me join the Prime Minister yesterday, and I am sure the whole House today, in remembering the dreadful events of 30 years ago in Dunblane and paying tribute to the victims and their families.

On a happier note, last Monday saw the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s immortal masterpiece “The Wealth of Nations”.

Declare your interest!

Hon. Members may wish, if they like, to consult works by the shadow Leader of the House on this topic. I doubt whether any other book or any single body of thought has had more effect in improving the lives and livelihoods of people across the world in the intervening 250 years.

We celebrate the service of our armed forces and we rightly treat defence matters, wherever possible, as bound by a united focus on the national interest, but it is precisely that focus on the national interest that requires us now to acknowledge that the past two weeks have been a disaster for this country. Our allies in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and across the Gulf have criticised this country for its “slow” and “weak” response to date. The Cypriot high commissioner and the President of Cyprus have publicly expressed their disappointment and dissatisfaction. Why? Because we have exposed their people and our people to drone attacks as targets, placed weapons systems on their territories, made solemn undertakings to them over many years and now failed to come to their defence in time.

It did not have to be this way, so we must ask how this can possibly have happened. Let us review the history. It was being publicly reported by 15 January that America was starting to build a carrier strike force around the USS Abraham Lincoln, targeted at Iran. On 26 January, The Washington Post reported that this force had arrived in the middle east. On 31 January, our own Prime Minister told the BBC:

“The aim is that Iran shouldn’t be able to develop nuclear weapons…we support the goal and we are talking to allies about how we get to that goal.”

Those remarks come close to an explicit endorsement of the United States on its operation, as they were doubtless intended to.

The key point is this: all this happened four full weeks before the start of the attack. Last week, at this Dispatch Box, I highlighted the gaps and inconsistencies in the Government’s position, between their supposedly settled legal view and the last-ditch political decision reportedly taken in Cabinet on the Friday before hostilities began, and secondly between the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, whose original instinct was to support the USA but who was overruled.

May I first respond to your words, Mr Speaker, about the events of yesterday evening? I endorse everything that you have said about the need to respect staff—it is absolutely correct that you should say that and I absolutely endorse your remarks. I assure you and the House that not only have the Government heard your words, but they will be acted upon.

May I also associate myself with the remarks that the shadow Leader of the House made about Dunblane? We remember that tragedy. On a personal level, one of the proudest moments in my career was when I voted for a ban on handguns, because that has made a difference to the safety of our communities.

I will turn to the specific remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but the events unfolding in Iran are deeply concerning, and our thoughts are with British citizens and our brave servicemen and servicewomen in the region. The security and safety of British citizens across the region is the Government’s top priority. The first Government-charted flight landed on Tuesday morning, with the second landing on Wednesday. We will continue to explore all options for helping our citizens to return home as swiftly and safely as possible. Drop-in sessions are being held for MPs with concerns. As I said last week, should Members face issues or be unable to get the support that they need for their constituents, I invite them to speak to my office and my officials—we will help in any way we can.

This week, we have launched the social cohesion action plan, which sets out the steps that the Government are taking to improve social cohesion and protect what matters. We will invest in initiatives that create opportunities for connection across backgrounds, and we will expand the Pride in Place programme, which puts more communities at the heart of decision making in their own neighbourhoods. We will develop new tools and powers to safeguard organisations that spread extremism and hate, and that threaten public safety.

Overgrown vegetation is impeding access to footpaths on Stansfeld Avenue and Pritchard Drive in Hawkinge in my constituency. When I made representations on behalf of local residents to the local council, I was informed that the footpaths are not registered with the town council, the district council or the county council, because the developers did not consider their long-term stewardship. Until now, local volunteers have ended up having to keep them clear themselves. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the responsibility of developers to ensure the proper adoption and maintenance of footpaths and other community infrastructure?

Unadopted roads and pavements can cause a range of issues for residents, and this Government are currently consulting on the issue of unadopted amenities. I am sure that Members will be updated when that work has concluded, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s comments are brought to the attention of Ministers.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I bring to the House this week a matter that I have raised with the Leader of the House before: fraud. As he knows, fraud is a devastating crime that can destroy people’s life savings and plunge them into debt, and it is now the most frequently experienced crime in Britain. On Monday, the Government released their fraud strategy, but anybody would be forgiven for not noticing, because no Minister came to the Dispatch Box to speak about it, and there was hardly any media coverage.

Given how prevalent this crime is, we have to ask ourselves why no noise was made about this significant strategy. I think the reason is that a key pre-election commitment on fraud was quietly dropped. The Prime Minister himself said that big tech companies need to be held financially accountable for their role in fraud, but when the strategy was released, it did not enforce that commitment; instead, an industry working group emerged, which will talk to the industry and ask them nicely to act. The banks and financial regulators are unhappy about this—of course, the banks are on the hook for paying out compensation to customers when they are victims of fraud. They say that when they try to get big tech companies to act, those companies are far too slow and not responsive, and the only thing that will make them act is if they are also hit in the pocket when fraud takes place. Can the Leader of the House organise for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and explain why that commitment was dropped? Also, I raised this matter with the Leader of the House in October last year, and I still have not received a reply from the Minister.

The hon. Gentleman asks why there was not a statement on Monday regarding the launch of the strategy. Monday was particularly busy—there were important statements—and the fact that there was not an oral statement on the strategy is not a reflection on the importance of fraud. However, I will bear in mind what he has said.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the Government launched their fraud strategy this week. As he says, fraud is distressing and disruptive, and has long-term effects on victims. I am not as pessimistic as he is about our strategy; it sets out how we will use every tool at our disposal to disrupt and dismantle criminal operations, bring fraudsters to justice and strengthen protection and support for victims; £250 million is being invested over the next three years for that fight. However, I note his request for a statement and an update, and I will bring it to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Ellesmere Port is benefiting from investment in its new market and £20 million from the Pride in Place fund, but the shopping centre is basically being left to rot by its owners, Adhan. The problem we have is that Adhan is a private company. It has made many promises of investment in the past, but has not delivered; shops are left empty, units are not filled, and the heating in the centre does not even work. Adhan is milking the centre dry and leaving a big hole in the town centre. It is a real shame that this is happening when we have so much other investment, so could we please have a debate about what more powers local authorities could have to compel investment in the whole of our town centres?

The reality is that when the Conservative party was in government, it hollowed out our high streets. We are giving unprecedented new powers to local communities to seize boarded-up shops and revitalise neglected high streets, but I will share my hon. Friend’s concerns with Ministers. Should he seek a meeting, I will facilitate one, or if he wants to hear directly from Ministers in a debate, I encourage him to apply for one.

I call the acting Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, I can advise Members that on Thursday 26 March, there will be debates in the Chamber on transport accessibility for disabled people, and on support for Gurkha veterans. In Westminster Hall next week, there will be a number of debates, including one on productivity and economic growth in the east midlands and another—which I am sure will be particularly popular—on the accessibility of banking services. In the week commencing 23 March, there will be debates on sudden unexplained death in childhood, and on outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and cranio-cervical instability. There may possibly be a debate on the merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers, but that one is provisional. As the Leader of the House knows, we have a great deal of outstanding debates needing time, and the weekly plea for more time is coming his way.

Turning to an issue of mine, I have many park home owners in my constituency. As I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware, the Government published research only this week about park home owners. The Backbench Business Committee has a pending debate on this subject; if the Leader of the House was particularly generous with Government time, we could bring that forward and satisfy the many park home owners throughout the country.

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the whole Committee for its work. I note with particular pleasure that a debate is scheduled on access to banking services, an issue that has been raised in business questions many times. I cannot promise him more time at the moment, but I recognise that it is important to get confirmation of time as early as possible, and I will endeavour to do that.

We recognise the long-standing concerns of park home residents about things like commission fees. We have launched a call for evidence, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and everyone else’s, to contribute to it. I remind the House that park home residents are entitled to free independent legal advice about their rights through the Government-funded Leasehold Advisory Service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and I have often spoken in the House about the appalling audiology service at Doncaster Royal infirmary. It has put an action plan in place, and the situation regarding first-time appointments has improved, but second and third appointments are just not happening, and people are waiting for hearing aid refits and repairs. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to set out how they will support trusts to expand capacity for follow-up audiology care, including through the use of high street provision, where that can be provided under the NHS?

We know that people are waiting too long for community health services, and we are committed to cutting waiting lists, including for audiology. We are providing capital investment to upgrade audiology facilities in NHS trusts and expand audiology testing capacity through community diagnostic centres. I have raised my hon. Friend’s concerns with Health Ministers, who I believe wrote to him on the matter earlier this week, but I will ensure that the Department hears his latest question.