Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has addressed these issues in the clearest possible terms. There is absolutely no question of poaching or of riding roughshod over local health service organisation provision; indeed, the entire initiative has been developed in consultation with, and by agreement with, local health authorities. I would have thought that my hon. Friend, who is a doughty fighter for the NHS and for people's rights, would welcome the fact that through these projects and initiatives, the Government are massively increasing capacity to enable urgent treatment for our constituents, some of whom desperately need hip operations, for example. NHS patients will receive that additional capacity free at the point of treatmenta vital principle that the Conservatives plan to demolish through charges, privatisation and private health insurance.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Before the recess, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement on the outcome of the common agricultural policy, and I requested then that we be able to debate the impact on many of our constituencies of that important outcome. Will the Leader of the House agree to that debate?
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the Secretary of State's attention.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): I begin by declaring an interest, in that I am the patron of the Society of Registration Officers in England and Wales. The civil registration service has hardly changed since the 1830s, but it is just about to undergo a mini revolution as a result of the document published at the beginning of the summer entitled "Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change". I understand that that mini
revolution will be launched via a regulatory reform order, which will probably be discussed Upstairs, rather than on the Floor of the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as this matter affects the lives of all of our constituents, such a debate should take place on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on behalf of civil registrars; he performs a very important role. As an enthusiastic supporter of this initiative, he will know that the Government are modernising the entire process to make it in tune with people's lives today. I shall certainly bear his request in mind.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): May we have a statement from the Home Secretary, or perhaps one of the Law Officers, on the policing and judicial practice applied in the case of Mr. James Dowell, who found 15 youngsters vandalising his pond, and managed to detain three of them and force them to clear up the mess? He was subsequently arrested by no fewer than eight police officers for false imprisonment, received a sentence of 80 hours community service, and has been tagged for the next four months to make sure that he does not do it to them again. Would it not be good to get back to the time when the letters "PC" meant police constable, not political correctness?
Mr. Hain: I am obviously baffled by that case, but I shall certainly ensure that the Home Secretary knows about it. At least the citizen concerned was not sentenced to attend the proceedings of the Conservative party.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Hunting Bill is significantly changed in the Lords, as it undoubtedly will be, the Parliament Act will definitely be used, so that we can have a ban on fox hunting in the lifetime of this Parliament? Is it not essential that the will of the elected House triumphs over a totally unrepresentative House of Lords, in which 92 hereditaries remainfor the time being?
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality made clear on 21 March last year the Government's policy on the Parliament Act, and it has not changed. This House voted overwhelmingly for a ban on cruelty to animals, which the House of Lords will, I am sure, wish to respect. I am sure that matters will proceed and that we can reach a consensual outcome. My right hon. Friend has made the Government's position clear, and we stand by it.
Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North): The Leader of the House will be aware of my constituents' great concern about continuing donations to IRA-Sinn Fein from America, a recent example of which was a donation by the Coca-Cola corporation. At the time of that donation, Mr. David Hillwho has been appointed as successor to Mr. Alastair Campbell at No. 10worked for a public relations company, one of whose clients was the Coca-Cola corporation. May we have a statement to clarify the Government's position, whether the Prime
Minister was aware of and approved of the current situation, and whether he agrees that donations to IRA-Sinn Fein by companies here or elsewhere are totally unacceptable, given its ongoing commitment to violence and its refusal to give up the machinery of terrorism in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will wish to take note of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): As my right hon. Friend rightly said, last week's Intelligence and Security Committee report nailed the lie that the Government had in some way doctored intelligence assessments. I refer him to a very important section of the report, which referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee assessment that was made in February, in the run-up to the war. It said that there was no intelligence-assessed link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda and terrorism, and that the collapse of that regime would heighten the terrorist risk to us. Do the Government intend, in the spirit of publishing dossiers, to publish that assessment, and will he give the House an opportunity to discuss it?
Mr. Hain: Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have dealt with this matter. The Government have never maintained that Iraq was involved with al-Qaeda in respect of the 11 September terrorist attack. However, we have always said that there was always a dangerwe are beginning to see this happenthat Saddam Hussein's monstrous regime would link up with terrorists[Interruption.] Of course, there was bound to be a danger that when the regime collapsed, different forces would seek to interpose themselves, as they have predictably done. But the real issue before the House was whether to leave Saddam in power, with his monstrous tyranny and ability to threaten the rest of the region and the rest of the world. We are proud that we did not duck that choice, and as a result Iraq and the rest of the world will be a better place in the months and years to come.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): May we have an early debate on today's report on gangmasters from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee? If time cannot be found for such a debate, could the Leader of the House at least ask the Secretary of State to respond urgently to that report? He will be aware that gangmasters provide crucial casual labour to growers and producers throughout the United Kingdom, but that many of them are ruthless and are guilty of the grossest exploitation. Moreover, much Treasury revenue is lost and people are often put at risk, as I myself know from a tragic railway accident of 7 July. The report is hard-hitting and makes clear recommendations, on which the Government need to act.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter, of which he has particular knowledge. I am sure that the Ministers concerned will
want to act urgently on that report, and I shall certainly ensure that his question is drawn to their urgent attention.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): Would the Leader of House consider having a debate on Royal Mail's intention to close down its air freight service at the Liverpool John Lennon airport on the grounds of an assessment based on faulty financial information? Is there a case for a general discussion of how public interest companies interpret their commercial freedom in relation to Government policy?
Mr. Hain: I think that we had a debate on those matters shortly before the recess, but my hon. Friend raises an important issue, which will no doubt be of concern to her constituents. I will ensure that the appropriate Ministerand, indeed, Royal Mailis made aware of her question.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): In the light of the motion carried in the Scottish Parliament on the detention of children at Dungavel and the deep concern expressed by members of the church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland, will the Leader of the House consider providing us with an opportunity to debate the matter as soon as practically possible? Is he aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House regard the detention of children as the unacceptable face of Scotland in the 21st century?
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman may know, that serious matter of great concern has been raised in Scottish questions. I am sure that the appropriate Ministers will note with great seriousness the hon. Gentleman's question.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |