| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Feb 2003 : Column 449—continued
Mr. Cook: I can tell already from the right hon. Gentleman's face that that will not command universal consensus on both sides of the Chamber, but since many
of my hon. Friends appear to have meant that they wanted indirect election when they voted for appointment, I think it right for the Joint Committee to explore the possibility.
Bob Spink (Castle Point): As the right hon. Gentleman is such a caring man, will he find time for a debate on the crucial importance of speech therapy, and in particular the importance of fully meeting children's statemented needs? That would give us an opportunity to thank all who work in speech therapy for their dedication and professionalism, and to try to ensure that funds get through from the primary care trusts to the sharp end so that children receive proper provision, especially in south Essex.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. We all salute the work of speech therapists, and recognise their immense importance in developing young people's confidence so that they can continue other aspects of their education. We hope that our increased, record investment in the national health service will provide adequate support for speech therapy.
Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on youth justice? I am sure he is aware of the shocking report from the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, on Ashfield young offenders institution near Bristol. He may not know, however, that because of a lack of provision in Wales many young people from Wales serve their sentences in that prison. The plan is now to empty the institution, which will greatly concern families in Wales because young offenders may be even further from family and friends as a result. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to consider where such young people will be placed in future?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that all Members, regardless of whether they represent one of the local areas, will share my hon. Friend's concern over the very worrying report on the Ashfield centre. I assure my hon. Friend that Ministers are following the work of the Prison Service with the closest attention. I will ask them to write to her setting out the particular implications for young offenders from Wales.
Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): Will Ministers and officials meeting Mr. Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister, raise with him Iran's appalling human rights programme and its own secret weapons programme? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that some of us, while accepting that the spotlight should be turned on Iraq, cannot understand why we are asked to turn a blind eye to the bloodstained activities in Tehran and the secret weapons programme that it is developing? Could we have an opportunity to discuss that?
Mr. Cook: I am confident that my colleagues at the Foreign Office have continued the dialogue on human rights with Iran that has been proceeding for some time. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about, in particular, the potential weapons programmes in Iran, but what has been encouraging over the last few years is
the substantial support among the Iranian electorate for forces of modernisation and moderation, and the extent to which they have rejected the hardline clerics' position.It is one of the unfortunate features of Iranian politics that the military and security aspects are in the hands of the revolutionary authorities set up by the hardline clerics rather than those of the democratic and elected Government of Iran. If we want to assist the people of Iran, it is in our interests to support and welcome the modernising forces of which Iran's elected Government and Mr. Kharazi are a part, and make sure it is clear that the west is willing to work with the forces of moderation and democracy in Iran.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): In view of the crucial importance of the evidence presented to the UN yesterday, may I add my voice to those calling for a specific debate on the question of evidence—also in view of the weapons inspectors' report, which will appear next week?
After business questions we shall hear a welcome statement on our contingency preparations in respect of Iraq, but we shall not have an opportunity to discuss the evidence to which the contingency preparations are designed to respond. Does my right hon. Friend not consider that unusual?
Mr. Cook: I am quite sure that the evidence will play a crucial part in any discussion on policy in relation to Iraq. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, he has sought to put in the public domain a lot of the evidence available to the British Government. My hon. Friend is right to say that those who are concerned about what action might be taken in relation to Iraq will necessarily wish to probe, examine and assess the evidence for themselves. That must form part of any future debate, and I can assure the House that there will be an opportunity for that to happen in any such debate.
John Cryer (Hornchurch): May we have a debate on early-day motion 561?
[That this House notes that community pharmacists offer their local communities convenient access to NHS services; recognises their role in reducing the burden on local general practitioners; notes the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading that pharmaceutical dispensing should be made open to free market competition; is concerned that supermarkets would use their market power to undermine and eliminate small local pharmacies and thereby effect a net loss of NHS provision; and urges Her Majesty's Government not to accept this recommendation of the OFT.]
The motion relates to the Office of Fair Trading's recommendation that pharmaceutical dispensing be opened to the free market. That would threaten the existence of hundreds, if not thousands, of small chemists, and would open yet another sector to the rapacious tendencies of the big supermarket chains. For many communities, that would be simply unacceptable. If we cannot have a debate, may we at least have a
statement, so that the many of us who are concerned about this issue might recommend that the OFT proposals be thrown out?
Mr. Cook: I am not familiar with that OFT report, but I shall make a point of becoming so as soon as I leave the Chamber. I fully share my hon. Friend's concern that we ensure that local community pharmacists have every opportunity to continue in business. I am well aware from my constituency work how much constituents value them, and I am sure that other Members are, too. It is important that we take forward a proper competition agenda, while at the same time ensuring that we preserve local services.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are six hon. Members left to speak, and if the questions are brief, I can take every one of them.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): My right hon. Friend will be aware that today, North Korea threatened a pre-emptive strike against American troops stationed on the Korean peninsula, should the number of those troops be increased. The Prime Minister has committed this country to contesting North Korea through the United Nations, but equally, it is British Government policy—should a second resolution on Iraq be tabled and one of the five permanent members of the Security Council exercise a veto—that this country will still engage in a war against Iraq. May we have a debate on what precisely the British Government's policy is in respect of the United Nations?
Mr. Cook: I am quite sure that there will be further opportunities for the House to debate this matter, but there is no doubt about this Government's commitment to the United Nations. Indeed, it is partly as a result of the Prime Minister's energy and activity that we have kept the Iraq crisis firmly anchored in the UN, and that the next stage of developments on Iraq will be for UN inspectors to report to the Security Council. They are in Iraq only as a result of the action that we and other countries have taken to ensure that the issue was raised through the Security Council.
Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge): We can all play about with the statistics arising from Tuesday's votes and come to conclusions that suit our own arguments, but that is a rather silly avenue to go down, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to rise above it. What is clear after Tuesday is that the status quo is not an option and hereditary peerages must go—indeed, even their lordships did not vote to retain them. I welcome what he is now saying about indirect elections, but will he have a word with his colleagues on the Joint Committee who supported the elected option—they included the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who voted to have any reference to indirect elections removed from the report?
Mr. Cook: I am not quite sure which of the statistics that I quoted my hon. Friend is taking exception to. If he wants to amend any of these statistics, I will cheerfully
correct the record, but I notice that he did not suggest that I was wrong in any particular fact in respect of those that I quoted. What I did say is that all options were defeated—there were no winners on Tuesday. I agree with him that the status quo is unacceptable, but unfortunately, as a result of Tuesday we do not currently have an alternative to it, and there is no facile and easy solution.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |