here - United Kingdom Parliament

1677 Business of the House
6 JUNE 2013
Business of the House
1678
[Ms Angela Eagle]
wedding and the jubilee. This Government have been in
office for three years. When will they face up to their
responsibilities and realise that they have only themselves
to blame?
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of
the House, not least for the opportunity to mark in the
House the centenary, as she rightly said, of the death of
Emily Wilding Davison who, on 4 June 1913 I think it
was, threw herself in front of the—was it the King or
the Prince of Wales?—the King’s horse at the Epsom
derby. I understand that there was an extremely successful
event in Westminster Hall yesterday to mark that; it is
important for us to do so.
Many would share the view that we have come on a
very long way in a century, but not as far as we would
like to have done, not least in ensuring that we realise to
the full the potential that women are able to bring into
our political life. In my party we feel strongly that we
did very well at the last election in doing so, and we have
further to go and I am looking forward to—
Ms Angela Eagle: Where are they?
Mr Lansley: Busy, I would imagine. The experience in
this Parliament of increased numbers of women in the
parliamentary Conservative party will have encouraged
Conservative associations across the country in their
selections for the future.
The hon. Lady mentioned child care. She will be
aware that no announcements have been made. We are
committed to securing improving quality and affordability
for parents seeking child care and we will make
announcements in due course.
The hon. Lady made a point about Back-Bench
debates. She said that Back-Bench votes instructed the
Government. She completely understands, I know, that
they are very important opportunities for Back-Bench
and House opinion to be expressed. The Government
never ignore them, and particularly in relation to the
debate on the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of
Fusiliers, Ministers took that decision seriously, weighed
it carefully and came back to the House on a further
occasion in order to explain why they maintained the
decision that they had made.
Yesterday, Ministers came back to the House at the
instigation of the Opposition in order to explain fully
why the pilot badger cull was going ahead, and in a vote
yesterday the House endorsed the Government’s view
on that. In the course of her questions, including requests
for debates, the shadow Leader of the House did not
tell us what the Opposition are planning to do with
their time.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab):
It is called a Business Question.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): The Leader of the
House has to answer it.
Mr Lansley: I know it is a question, but in the course
of her questions the shadow Leader of the House might
have indicated to the House what the subjects for the
Opposition day debates next week might be, not least as
she seems to have an idea of the issues that she regards
as important. She might think, for example, that 19 June
would be a good opportunity to debate tax evasion and
tax avoidance in the wake of the initiative, which is,
I think, unprecedented in scale and success, that the
Prime Minister has led in securing international
co-operation, not least through the G8 summit that will
have taken place over the previous weekend. No doubt
by that date there will have been an opportunity for the
Labour party to have paid to the Revenue any tax that
would have been due on any donations that might have
been given to it.
In the light of the speeches that have been made this
week, the hon. Lady might also try to have a debate
about the credibility of Opposition policy. On Monday,
the shadow Chancellor was in complete denial about
the simple fact that he talked with the former Chancellor
of the Exchequer and Prime Minister about “iron discipline”
just ahead of the biggest spending spree by a Government
that this country has ever seen, which left us in the
biggest debt that this country has ever encountered.
That is no iron discipline; there is no credibility in that.
If the Opposition are going to make speeches about
welfare reform, they have to answer some simple questions.
To give just one example, do Labour Members now
believe that they were wrong to oppose the Bill that
became the Welfare Reform Act 2012, with its cap on
welfare uprating for working-age benefit recipients? If
the shadow Leader of the House is able to say that they
were wrong about that, there might be some credibility;
otherwise it was a completely empty policy.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con):
Today I will be delivering a letter to the Prime Minister
signed by 81 Conservative colleagues calling for a
parliamentary debate and a vote before the Government
make any decision to arm any factions in the Syrian
conflict. There is considerable concern in this House
and, indeed, the country about our being pulled further
into another middle eastern conflict where there appear
to be many sides but no end. Can my right hon. Friend
confirm that if such a decision to arm any of the groups
is considered during a recess, Parliament can be quickly
recalled so that we can debate this very important issue?
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have
had the opportunity to see early-day motion 189, which
relates to this.
[That this House believes that prior to any decision being
taken to supply arms to the Syrian National Coalition or
any other groups in Syria, a full debate and vote should be
held in Parliament and in addition to this, if Parliament is
in recess, it should be recalled to facilitate this important
debate; notes the division and sensitivity that this issue
evokes both with colleagues and the general public; believes
that it is a matter that needs to be subjected to full
parliamentary scrutiny and debate before the UK potentially
becomes further involved in another Middle Eastern conflict;
and further notes that in some matters of defence, time
does not always allow for parliamentary debate, whilst
not however believing this constraint applies to this potential
course of action.]
My hon. Friend will recall what my right hon. Friend
the Prime Minister said yesterday, when he was absolutely
clear—in the same way that he was careful to ensure
that on 21 March 2011 the House had an opportunity