| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield): May I raise an important matter with the Leader of the House that is of great concern throughout Sutton Coldfield and the Birmingham area—care homes for the elderly and the policies being pursued by Birmingham council? Over the past three years, more than 120 beds have closed in Birmingham, and projections this week suggest that a further 176 will go. Meanwhile, the latest figures show that 146 people are waiting in local hospitals for a place in a care home. There is also a huge differential between what Birmingham city council pays for places in its own homes and what it pays to the private sector, which is a clear breach of the Government's best-value guidelines. It would be most helpful if we could have a chance before the recess to discuss these matters, which are of great importance, not least because there is great concern in Birmingham this week about the workings of the National Care Standards Commission and recent events in connection with that. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to find a slot before the House rises on 18 July.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a time for me to intervene. Questions are far too long, and perhaps the Leader of the House can bear in mind the need for brief replies.
Peter Hain: I understand the importance of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. There will be plenty of opportunities to raise these matters, as there have been in the recent past.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North): May I probe my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the Report stage of the Hunting Bill on Monday? Given my four years' experience of serving in the Whips Office, during which time I helped to guide many Government Bills through the House, I was struck when I examined the Bill yesterday by the enormous technical difficulties that would arise if a substantial amendment, such as a total ban, were agreed. I hope that there is a ban, and I would vote for such an amendment. However, it would change the Bill dramatically. My right hon. Friend has explained some of the technical details, but could he go a bit further and clarify the timetable, if such an amendment were accepted, for example, on recommittal and when the Bill would come back from the House of Lords? On Monday, people will want to know how long the process will take. Clearly, we want a proper Bill to leave the House and go to the Lords.
Peter Hain: We do not know exactly what the timing consequences will be until the end of the Report stage, when we will know what shape the Bill is in. We do not yet know whether it will need recommittal then or not. However, on the basis of the advice that I have been given, it is pretty clear that it will not be possible to get it into the Lords, as we had intended, before the recess if recommittal is necessary. Recommittal is not something that the Government want, but it needs to be an option for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave and, as I have
explained, that will depend on the shape of the Bill after Report. It does not serve any objective, even for people wanting a total ban, which I have consistently voted for over the years, to proceed with a Bill that is not technically in order. It would not be covered by the Parliament Act, so that is not a sensible way for the House to proceed.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1466, which deals with the great public debate on genetically modified crops and was tabled by the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher)?
[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to initiate a major public debate on GM food and crops; urges all constituents to join in this debate through the use of the questionnaire on www.gmnation.org.uk; notes the deep public concern that has been widely expressed to date on the health and environmental implications of GM food and crops; further notes that much of the research evidence relevant to this debate will not be available within the timeframe of the consultation period; and therefore calls on the Government to extend the consultation period to enable maximum public participation on a fully informed basis.]
When can we have a little bit of that public debate in the House? It may have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that such a debate is going on, because in Wales, his other area of responsibility, it has amounted to no more than a handful of public meetings and a consultation, the form for which is not available in Welsh. There is nothing on the website of the National Assembly for Wales about the consultation, even though the Assembly itself says that it is a GM-free zone. Importantly, the Government will not release their contribution until the debate has ended. When can we have a debate in Parliament, in Government time, on the material substance and facts about the future of GM crops in this country?
Peter Hain: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's request must be considered in the usual way, but he should be aware that we have already extended the timetable for the debate on GM by three months at the request of the public debate steering board. There is plenty of time for the public and the hon. Gentleman to get involved, and there will be opportunities for him to do so in the House in the usual ways. The deadline for feedback to the steering board is 18 July.
Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole): From early-day motion 1218, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are working towards an announcement on whether to place an order with BAE Systems for the Hawk jet.
[That this House notes the decision to award the contract for the Hawk jet fighter is due to be made; recognises that thousands of jobs directly and indirectly through the supply chain depend upon this work; further notes the importance of the UK aerospace industry as a world leader providing thousands of high quality jobs in addition to supporting the UK's manufacturing sector; and calls on the Government to make an early decision in support of UK aerospace manufacturing.]
Given that the workers are under precautionary notice of redundancy at the end of July, can my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement on the matter and a decision that will give the British military the very best British kit?
Peter Hain: I share my hon. Friend's objective of taking advantage of the very best British kit and welcome the fact that he raises the matter. I will draw it to the attention of the relevant Cabinet Ministers because it is important that the interests involved are secured.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): The Leader of the House announced a debate on Tuesday week on the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—a Bill that was programmed in Standing Committee, with 55 clauses and 46 Government amendments not debated at all. Does he agree that that is unsatisfactory? Will he consider reverting to the previous regime, whereby the Government indicated the date by which a Bill should emerge from Standing Committee, but up to that point there was great flexibility as to how that time should be used? Does he agree that that might enable the House to scrutinise Bills more effectively than does the current regime?
Peter Hain: Although I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's long experience of these matters, he may think, on reflection, that the procedure that we have adopted has led to greater scrutiny. Nevertheless, I shall look into the points that he raised.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): Can we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about Government plans to privatise file stores? Those file stores are dotted around the country and hold sensitive information about citizens who are claiming social security benefits. The plan is to privatise the file stores by July next year, and no in-house bid is being invited—only a private sector solution. One of those file stores is in my constituency. There are good civil servants working there, and they want to stay civil servants. They do not want to be moved into the private sector. It is an important matter that affects many constituents.
Peter Hain: I understand the importance of the matter to my hon. Friend, his constituents and those of other hon. Members. I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe): Some of us voted for the recent war because we were assured by Ministers that Saddam possessed a weapon of mass destruction that was a threat to our peace and security. Will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said a moment ago about an Iraq debate? Some of us would like to question Ministers very closely on those matters.
Peter Hain: Obviously, an inquiry is taking place through the Foreign Affairs Committee. No doubt it will report and the usual opportunities for consideration will follow. The hon. Gentleman joined us in the Lobby
in support of the Government. Having been a Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for the middle east, covering the Iraq desk for nearly two years, having been in the Foreign Office when much of the process was building up and a Cabinet Minister at the time of the decision to take military action, I can say categorically that I have seen intelligence, shown to me by the most senior members of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Joint Intelligence Committee, which was conclusive on weapons of mass destruction. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman about my own experience, which persuaded me that what we were doing was absolutely necessary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |