| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Mar 2003 : Column 457—continued
Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley): My hon. Friend is aware of the tragic death before Christmas of my constituent, Daniel Hindle, who was aged 17, after having had his lip pierced. Is he aware that body piercing is not regulated outside London? What action do the Government intend to take to introduce legislation as soon as possible to ensure that body piercing is a much safer practice throughout the country?
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I congratulate her on her work on the matter following the tragic death of one of her young constituents. We are all aware of the problem from our constituency experience. She may be aware that the Local Government Bill will receive its Second Reading in the other place on 3 April, and she may like to try to arrange for a relevant amendment to be tabled there before then.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk): Will the Parliamentary Secretary explore the possibility of a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the situation in Kashmir? In the past week, there was the appalling massacre of 23 Hindu villagers, who were entirely innocent, preceded just a few days earlier by the assassination of the insurgent commander Abdul Majid Dar. The concern is that with the eyes of the world turned elsewhere, there will be increased tension between India and Pakistan, and it is important for the
House to know what discussions there might be with those two Governments about the situation there. To declare an interest, I visited Kashmir last October as part of a delegation funded by the Indian Government.
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the situation in Kashmir is extremely worrying, and he puts his finger on an important point: the danger that groups, factions or dictators—in the case of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe—will exploit the fact that the international spotlight is on one particular issue to do things that they would not have got away with otherwise. I am sure that when the Foreign Secretary next comes to this House to make a statement, the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to question him on precisely that issue.
Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East): Will my hon. Friend make some time available for us to debate in the House the future of the steel industry, which is going through a very difficult time? It has been announced that one or two of the three sites could be closed. Certainly, my area of Teesside could face redundancies of 3,000 direct jobs and 7,000 indirect jobs. We discussed manufacturing industry this morning, and it is a very important issue. Given that, will my hon. Friend find some time for us to debate the future of the steel industry?
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises an important point that I know is of great concern to people in his constituency who face the possibility of losing their jobs. I hope that the recent reduction in the strength of the pound will be of some comfort to our manufacturing industry in general and to our steel industry in particular. That said, there are very big difficulties in the steel market within the global economy. I cannot promise that we will be able to find time to have a debate on the steel industry on the Floor of the House, but my hon. Friend may like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): Although last Thursday it seemed churlish and carping of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), to demand, on the day that war had started, that there should be new ministerial appointments, I do not think that any Member of this House, including the Parliamentary Secretary, would have believed that a week later the appointments would still not have been made. I put it to him that it is vitally important that those ministerial positions are filled quickly, otherwise the world will think that there is no need for those Ministers or will assume that we are waiting for the end of the war and a reshuffle that includes the Secretary of State for International Development.
Mr. Bradshaw: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the machinery of Government and the work that is being done continues. The situation is not unprecedented. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was not in her post at the Department of Health for several months after she had a baby, and that work was taken on by other Ministers. It is perfectly possible for that to
be done. We are in a very unusual situation: we have a military conflict going on, and we had a small number of ministerial resignations on the eve of that conflict. I urge the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to have some understanding of the pressure that the Prime Minister is under. He needs to take great care over the way in which he reforms his Government, and at the moment the safety of our forces in Iraq is his primary concern.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): If there is very shortly to be another statement on Iraq, would it not be a useful opportunity to remind ourselves that tens of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered over the years, and that what was said earlier should therefore be put into perspective? While this war is being waged against tyranny, and victory must indeed be ours, is it not absolutely necessary, in so far as it is possible, that genuine civilians should be protected? If what occurred yesterday was the result of American bombing, it is to be deplored.
Mr. Bradshaw: What happened yesterday represents a prime example of why we need to be extremely cautious before we jump to conclusions about what might have happened. In a situation like that, where there is claim and counter-claim, what we do know is that coalition forces take unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties, whereas Saddam Hussein deliberately locates military infrastructure in the middle of civilian populations, and he uses civilians as human shields—he has done so before, and he is doing so now.
Mr. John Taylor (Solihull): When the Government initially embarked on their domestic airports consultation, it was on a presumption of suppressed demand in the south-east, with consequences for the other regions. Now that that has been reversed by the High Court, should not the midlands region, for example, be re-consulted on the revised assumptions? Is not the whole process now flawed and open to further challenge, and may we have a debate?
Mr. Bradshaw: We are committed to regional airports, and the High Court decision related only to Gatwick, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The consultation process is still going on, and I am sure that if he has not already done so—I suspect that he has—he will give his opinions and feed them into that process.
Jane Griffiths (Reading, East): Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on better regulation to outlaw sharp practice by solicitors and estate agents in order to protect people such as my constituent, Mr. Cant, who has been the victim of a series of extremely threatening letters in an attempt to bully him into selling his home for a price that is some £60,000 less than its market value?
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises a point that I am sure that many of us have come across in our constituency casework. I am also sure that she will be aware that measures have been undertaken to improve the working of the Law Society, which is the organisation that polices the profession of solicitors.
She has made her point, and I hope that the firm in question has heard it. Again, she may wish to apply for a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): I sympathise with the difficulties of the Government in conducting a full-scale reshuffle of Cabinet and other ministerial posts while a war is going on, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that one post that is directly relevant to the war, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House pointed out, is that of Minister with responsibility for homeland security. The Opposition wanted a separate Department for homeland security, as this country is at risk of terrorism. Surely that appointment can be made now, without waiting for a full-scale reshuffle, even if one accepts the reasoning that the acting Leader of the House has put forward.
Mr. Bradshaw: The Home Secretary is in overall charge of homeland security and is doing an excellent job. The responsibilities that were in the portfolio of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) have been passed to his colleagues in the Home Office, so my right hon. Friend's resignation does not mean that the job is not being done. Rather than carping about that we should congratulate our police and security forces on the work that they have done to ensure the safety of our citizens post-11 September and on what they have done to avert some serious incidents.
John Cryer (Hornchurch): Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on the impact of the council tax on people on fixed incomes? I am thinking particularly about pensioners. The formula and the workings of the council tax have been reviewed and have been changed to some extent, but that is a fairly superficial examination. The fundamentals of the present council tax have not been dealt with, and they owe far too much to its predecessor, the hated poll tax. That is why it is probably the most iniquitous tax that Britain has ever had. May we have a debate to examine those fundamentals?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |