---

Business of the House

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. This may be the last time that he takes business questions. [Hon. Members: ““Ahh!””] I thank him for the way in which he has always treated the House with respect. He will be able to look back on his term of office with satisfaction, because he has introduced many changes that will make parliamentary procedure more effective. There is dissent on the Labour Back Benches. According to the Prime Minister,"““if troop commanders want more equipment—for example, more helicopters—that will be provided””," yet Colonel Bob Stewart has said that the Army"““have been asking for more helicopters forever””." We now know that last year the Ministry of Defence was given the opportunity to hire military transport helicopters for Afghanistan, but despite the crippling transportation shortage there, Ministers turned down the opportunity. We have a debate later today on armed forces personnel, but can we have a debate on the lack of equipment for our brave and loyal troops? Ahead of today’s intergovernmental conference, Downing street has said that there is no need for a referendum"““because we will not sign up to anything that breaches our red lines””." Even if the red lines are not breached, however, we have been told that the Government will surrender the veto in 52 areas of policy and significantly weaken it in a further 10. The Government have no democratic mandate to do that, so can we have a debate on the need for a referendum? The Public Accounts Committee has said that the Government spend £2 billion a year on consultants, and Ministers have been accused of sacking civil servants and replacing them with more expensive consultants. That is all because of the Gershon review, which the Chancellor set up to show how prudent he is. Can we have a debate on the Chancellor’s ““Yes, Minister”” style of government? Talking of the Chancellor’s style of government, I wish the Leader of the House all the very best in the forthcoming reshuffle. Indeed, I wish all Labour Members luck in the reshuffle—after all, this is the first reshuffle in history that has had Liberal Democrats sitting by their telephones. At last week’s business questions, the Leader of the House said that the Liberal Democrats try to avoid serious issues of government and always take the easy decisions of a party in permanent opposition. Yet the Labour Benches seem so devoid of talent that the Chancellor is offering Cabinet positions like knocked-off watches. Was the Leader of the House consulted on the decision to bring Liberal Democrats into government? For the benefit of his ministerial colleagues, may we have a debate on coping with redundancy? Finally, this week we have learned yet more about the Chancellor’s style of government. We know that the current Prime Minister believes the worst of the next Prime Minister, and that when the two met, civil servants would be waiting for a decision and all they could hear"““was the crockery being thrown around the kitchen.””" But the most telling quote of the week was from a former Home Secretary, who said that the Chancellor believes that"““you can pass a law or make an administrative decision in central government and that will change behaviour””—" hardly a new kind of politics. The Chancellor believes in state control; we believe in social responsibility. May we have a debate on the Chancellor’s all-powerful state? Is not that the future with him as Prime Minister: the control freak, the grabbing hand, the clunking fist?