---

Business of the House

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the business for the coming weeks, which, as he announced, includes debates on the Budget. I understand that nothing will be said about the health service during those debates because there will be no speech from the Health Secretary. Last week alone, 2,000 NHS jobs were cut, including doctors and nurses, but the Chancellor had nothing to say about the health service. When I have raised these NHS cuts in the past, the right hon. Gentleman’s response has been, ““Don’t you think financial management is important?”” Of course it is, but we need a debate on what has caused the cuts. Yesterday, the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead announced 480 job cuts and Geoff Martin, head of campaigns at London Health Emergency, said that that explained why the Chancellor had"““body-swerved the NHS question . . . Sacking nurses never looks good for the Government.””" I am interested in his comments, because I remember him when he was a Labour councillor in the London borough of Merton. Government targets and bureaucracy lie behind those cuts. That is why they are genuinely Brown’s NHS cuts. Let us fill in the gap that the Chancellor left in the Budget and have a debate on the NHS. Some cuts are also being made in mental health services. In the Adjournment debate on Monday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) stated:"““Surveys show that only 11 of a total of 84 trusts have considered making small cuts in mental health services.””—[Official Report, 20 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 132.]" Today there is a written ministerial statement on mental health legislation, but according to the radio this morning, the Government will scrap the Mental Health Bill, little more than a month after our debate on mental health, when no mention was made of scrapping the Bill. Again, we learn more about the Government’s actions from the media than on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State for Health should make an oral statement on mental health services next week, so that she can be questioned by hon. Members and held to account for her actions. Today, the Prime Minister is making a written statement on an independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. I welcome what appears to be his change of heart. However, we have called for an independent review of the ministerial code for four years. Indeed, I repeated that call yesterday in Westminster Hall. Will the Prime Minister make an oral statement on that and confirm that the Chancellor played an active part in Cabinet debates on the matter? It is another subject on which the Chancellor has been strangely silent. Today the chairman of Capita, Rod Aldridge, who lent money to the Labour party, resigned. Last year the Chancellor appointed him to chair his commission on youth volunteering. Will the Chancellor make a statement on Capita’s links with the Government? The Chancellor mentioned equal pay yesterday. He said:"““I can today announce new help for working women who want a wider range of career choices offering higher earnings and to close the pay gap with men.””—[Official Report, 22 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 293.]" To follow up the questions that have just been asked to the Minister for Women and Equality, does that mean that the Chancellor will close the 49 per cent. pay gap that exists for that Minister? After all, there is still no Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Department for Transport is one Minister down, so the money is available. May we have a debate on levels of pay? During it, we could perhaps discuss the pay offer in a Labour party advert last week, offering £28,000 to £32,000 for"““an experienced, successful, highly motivated and dynamic fundraiser to secure significant funds for the Labour Party.””" That individual will be"““involved in all aspects of our key donor fundraising work where you will be expected both to initiate ideas and fulfil expectations.””" We all know what those are. It is time that that the Prime Minister came to the House and explained himself.