---

Business of the House

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. Later today, the Monetary Policy Committee will decide whether to reduce interest rates— ...Now, as we speak. There is serious concern about the property market in the context of an economic slowdown and problems in the banking industry, so can next week's topical debate be on the housing market? Back in July, the Prime Minister told the House:"““we seek…an all-party consensus on…new provisions for pre-charge detention””—[Official Report, 25 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 843.]—" that is, the 28-day issue. Yet without any consensus, the Home Secretary has leaked her plans to the media and released a paragraph-long excuse for a written statement. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty says:"““It seems more like politics than policy-making””." Why has the Home Secretary not come to the House to make a proper oral statement so that Members can question her on her policy? Every week, the Leader of the House tells us that she puts Parliament first; every week her colleagues treat Parliament with disdain. The European Parliament has ruled that the United Kingdom is entitled to one more MEP. On the numbers, that seat should go to the west midlands, but it is rumoured that the Prime Minister wants to give it to Scotland for party political reasons. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the decision concerning which region gets the extra seat is based on fair representation, not party political calculation? Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, yesterday accepted that the recent data breaches"““indicate a wide systematic failure””." There have been seven HMRC security breaches ““of some significance”” in the last two and a half years, but the Chancellor and the Prime Minister continue to hide behind their claim that there is no systematic failure. Why will they not take responsibility and get a grip? Will the Chancellor come back to the House to make a new statement in light of this new information? While Labour politicians debate ditching the national anthem and changing the Union flag, the Prime Minister is about to break his manifesto promise and sign us up to the renamed European constitution, without a referendum. May I add my support to the European Scrutiny Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), a Labour Member? The Committee says that"““the matters raised should be debated on the Floor of the House before the Treaty is signed…we therefore hold the document under scrutiny””." May we have a debate, in Government time, specifically on the treaty? Last week, the right hon. and learned Lady said that she wants to"““reform and improve European scrutiny””.—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 444.]" She can make a start here. Finally, it was reported this morning that Labour officials helped David Abrahams draw up covenants to hide his donations. Since the right hon. and learned Lady's performance last week, we have found out that she failed to declare a £40,000 loan to the Electoral Commission. However, she told the House that she"““acted at all times within both the letter and the spirit of the law.””—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 435.]" I ask her again: when will she come to the House to make a full statement about her conduct and the lawbreaking in the Labour party?