Heath, Harris and Reid quiz Harman

• [May 14] David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat): I AM told that today is national dance like a chicken day, which may be apposite for activities in the House over the past week … …

. . While we have been obsessing-necessarily-about what has emerged in The Daily Telegraph, the world has continued: people have been losing their jobs, businesses have been closing, and people have lost their homes. We need to concentrate on that as well.

I understood the Leader of the House to have given a commitment a few months ago that each week there would be a debate or a Question Time on the economy. I cannot see either in next week's business or in the provisional business for the week after the recess. May I suggest that we might use one of the general debates in those weeks for a debate on unemployment? There are now 2.2 million people in this country who are unemployed, and we could discuss what we can do to address that.

I and various other hon. Members from all parties last week pointed out to the Leader of the House that only one day had been provided for the Report and remaining stages of the Policing and Crime Bill. That is clearly inadequate, and I hoped that the complaints made from all sides of the House would be recognised. We still have only one day for a Bill that is exceedingly complex, and it is almost certain that we will not reach key sections. Even at this late stage, will she look again at the timetabling of the Bill?

May we have a debate on class sizes? Departmental statistics were supposed to be released on 7 May, but they were unaccountably delayed for a week until yesterday-perhaps because they show that 29,200 children between the ages of five and seven are now taught in classes of more than 30, despite the Government's absolute pledge to do away with all classes of that size. How can that be? May we have a debate on the matter?

May we also have a debate on the state of our nation's roads? Anyone who drives around Somerset, Wiltshire and neighbouring counties will know that the roads have deteriorated very badly. They are full of potholes and there is a massive problem with the backlog of road maintenance-it is estimated that the average shortfall for each authority across the country is £6 million. The state of the roads causes danger and discomfort, especially to cyclists-I can vouch for that-and many people are concerned that money is being spent on compensation for road accident victims rather than on doing something about the cause of those accidents. May we therefore have a debate on the state of the roads?

Lastly, a while ago I caused some grief to Dr. Howells when he was the Minister dealing with the Bill that became the Licensing Act 2003. He incurred the wrath of folk singers in Somerset, including the redoubtable Wurzels, when he set out his plans for live music. The number of venues for live music, and the number of pubs and bars that provide live music, has declined, as we predicted. The Licensing Act has brought some advantages, but it has also brought about a dire state in the provision of live music in pubs, and many difficulties for voluntary bodies such as village halls. May we have a debate on the operation of the Act, so that we can explore how we can improve the situation and revitalise the music industry in this country?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour): In respect of the Policing and Crime Bill, in business questions last Thursday, I undertook to review the decision that it should have just one day on Report following Committee, as is usual. I have done that and looked again at the matter, because I know that there were concerns about four aspects: the definition of gangs; the use of DNA; control for gain in respect of prostitution, and its definition; and lap dancing and controls on lap-dancing clubs. Those are very important issues; I do not demur from that at all. However, the provisions on control for gain and lap dancing were already in the Bill when it was brought before the House on Second Reading. The Government are bringing forward amendments as concessions on issues raised in Committee.

The provisions on gangs and DNA were new; they were brought into the Bill in Committee, and therefore were not considered by the House on Second Reading. Concessions were agreed, so it is important that on Report we focus on those issues. When it comes to a Bill getting on to the statute book, we must take account not only of business in this House but proceedings in the other House. We have to make sure that we provide time so that we can consider not only our views but Lords amendments. Looking at the business of the House ahead of us, I have not seen a possibility of making a second day available. If it were possible to do so, I would have done it, but it was for me to make a judgment. I know that there were discussions among the parties, that there was not satisfaction on the issue, and that there have been concerns about it, but I am afraid I could not really offer any assistance on that, although I tried.

We made it a priority when we came into government to reduce class sizes, particularly in primary schools. Part of the reason for our big investment in education, year after year, is to keep class sizes down, so that each child can have more individual attention. That is one of the reasons why, despite the fact that there is a global economic recession, we are this year increasing investment in education by 4.3 per cent. That is in stark contrast to the cuts proposed by the Opposition, which would affect important things such as class sizes.

The third point raised by Mr. Heath was about the importance of the House being able to discuss and debate and hold Ministers to account on what is being done to protect businesses, jobs and people's homes. I did say that the House would have an opportunity to discuss those issues more or less every week-and it has had that opportunity in the past-because that is the No. 1 priority. This week, we have had two days of discussion on the Finance Bill. On Tuesday, debate on the Bill went on until nearly 2 o'clock in the morning, and last night I think that it went on until about 10 o'clock. I would say that that was an opportunity to debate issues that affect the economy, so the House has had those- [Interruption.] If Opposition Members are saying that debate on the Finance Bill does not count as debate on the economy, and they want an additional opportunity to discuss the issue, I will think about making it the subject of a topical debate.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about people killed or injured in road accidents. He could more properly have put that question to the team of Transport Ministers, who were answering questions just before business questions. He challenged the Government on a reduction in the number of venues available for live music as a result of the licensing regime. The fact is that there was an 8 per cent. increase in premises licensed with live music authorisation between March 2007 and March 2008, so if his proposition-

• David Heath: The number of licences has increased, but not the number of venues.

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour): Well, most people are concerned about two things. They are concerned about whether the places that want to provide music can get a licence to do so, and the answer to that point is that more people are getting licences. They are also concerned about ensuring that when those clubs or pubs have licences, all the people who are having a great time there do not deafen neighbours, and that the neighbours do not suffer a grim time as a result. The licensing regime is important, and more premises are getting a licence, so everything is absolutely fine, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about expenses; I suppose it was really a throw-away remark, but I know that he regards it as a very serious issue, as all hon. Members do. I do not think that anyone in any part of the House is in any doubt at all about the anger and outrage that there is on the subject. I think we all want to put things right quickly, because we all want to restore trust and confidence in Parliament. We are all united in our belief in the importance of Parliament to our democracy. This is a defining moment, and it is a huge challenge for all of us. The public who elected us, and whom we represent, expect us to sort it out. As Leader of the House, I want to say-on behalf, I hope, of the whole House-"We get it. We're going to sort it out." That goes for all of us. We are aware of the scale of anger and outrage. We all believe that the issue needs to be sorted out, and we will work together urgently to do exactly that.

. .

• Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat): In the reply of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend Mr. Heath on the Policing and Crime Bill, she laid down an astonishing remarkable new doctrine that the Government will decide which parts of Bills the House scrutinises-she says DNA, gangs, prostitution and lap dancing-and that it will be up to the Government to decide that we do not look at the 12 clauses on police reform, the 14 clauses on extradition, the six clauses on alcohol, the 16 clauses on proceeds of crime and other matters. There are also 41 miscellaneous clauses. Is it now the case that the Government decide that we will be allowed to scrutinise some bits on the Floor of House and some that we will not? Furthermore, has she any plans to negotiate with Front and Back Benchers over where the knives go in the limited time that we will now have to non-scrutinise this important piece of legislation?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour): There will be consultation, as there ought to be, on the programme motion and the allocation of time for different parts of the Bill. In my comments earlier, I was trying to respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the House last week-gangs, DNA, control for gain of prostitution, lap dancing, and, additionally, alcohol. I in no way meant that those were the only issues that the House would want to debate. I was just reflecting back and cognising that those were important issues that he raised last time, but certainly other issues are also important. We will have as much discussion as we can and will try, if possible, to reach agreement on the allocation of time in the full day's debate on Report. I will try to ensure that no statement or any other business cuts into that time.

. .

• Alan Reid (Argyll & Bute, Liberal Democrat): Last week, the Leader of the House rejected a request by me and other hon. Members for a debate and a vote on Equitable Life, and this week she has rejected hon. Members' entirely legitimate calls for more time to debate the Policing and Crime Bill. If there is not enough time in the current Session for those important debates, why can we not add an extra week to the Session at the end of July?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour): With respect, the hon. Gentleman has mixed up two issues that are not the same. I have not rejected anybody's concerns about Equitable Life. I explained the process: as soon as John Chadwick's interim report is ready, it will be brought to the House. I am not rejecting anybody's concerns; indeed, I share those concerns-we feel strongly about the matter and will bring it back to the House.

I have also not rejected the concerns that were raised by Mr. Heath and others about the Policing and Crime Bill. It is not so much an issue of this House. The issue is how we make sure that the Bill completes its passage through this House, but also the House of Lords and that we have an opportunity to deal with Lords amendments. It is not just a question of when we are in recess but what happens when the Bill goes from this House to the House of Lords and returns in time so that we can consider Lords amendments.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament