| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too far.
Mr. Hain: I would very much welcome a debate on state funding, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue because what it is actually about is extending the existing public funding for political parties in the House, which has led to a situation where the public funding of the Conservative party has more than trebled to a staggering £4 million since 1997. In fact, the Conservative party is now propped up by public funds. Over the last period, the Conservatives only raised £3.5 million themselves and received £4 million of public funding. The taxpayer should know about that.
There is a strong case—and I will therefore look seriously at the argument for a debate—for extending public funding so that our political parties outside Parliament, as well as inside Parliament, are supported and we can better connect with the public. I do not mean funding for campaigning, poster boards or leaflets—I mean state funding of the kind that is practised widely throughout the world, which makes sure that political parties can keep more closely in touch with local people and therefore better reflect their views.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Europe next week there will be a meeting of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry to consider the contamination levels of non-GM seeds by GM seeds? May I draw his attention to the statement made by Eurocommerce, which consists of Marks and Spencer, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Boots and others that
- "the proposed thresholds for seed lots will lead to contamination of the whole of the food and feed supply chain and will considerably reduce the freedom of choice available to consumers"?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has expertise in this area, as I acknowledged last week when she properly raised a similar matter, and I do think that we need a debate on it. As to whether it is as urgent as she says, although she made a powerful point, that will be a matter for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I shall certainly draw it to her attention.
Bob Spink (Castle Point): The Government are forcing thousands more houses on my small but beautiful—although overdeveloped and congested— constituency, without any thought of infrastructure improvement. Can we have a debate to consider a third road for Canvey Island, the congestion at Saddler's Farm and in Hadleigh, and the provision of a new terminus rail station for Waterside Farm, linking up to Pitsea?
Mr. Hain: Congestion is serious—there is no question about that—and it is a legacy of the dreadful transport policy that this Government inherited from the Conservatives. The hon. Gentleman of course has the opportunity, of which I hope that he will take advantage, of applying for an Adjournment debate in which he can properly raise these issues and reflect his constituents' concerns.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead): Will my right hon. Friend alleviate the worries and concerns of many of the pensioners in my constituency who are looking at policy being adumbrated by the Conservative party to remove a large amount of the moneys that they currently get? A single pensioner currently getting £102.10 would be reduced to £85 by the policies of the Conservative party—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Those matters have nothing to do with the Leader of the House during business questions.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): Will the Leader of the House clarify one key point? Will he endorse the comments of the Economic Secretary the other day that the Government have no intention whatever of changing the capital gains tax regime for homes? Will he also tell the House what the Government raised in stamp duty in 1997 and what they are likely to raise in stamp duty this year?
Mr. Hain: I certainly note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate, but I can confirm the Treasury's view that the Government have absolutely no such intention. Indeed, right across the board on tax matters, this Government have a very good record, which is confirmed by the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which showed that we have one of the lowest business tax regimes in the world.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1761, on the proposed closure of the Coal Aston post office in North-East Derbyshire?
[That this House is deeply concerned that the work of the National Consultative Team at the Post Office in considering representations made about proposed branch closures is nothing but a sham; is concerned that a typical letter sent out to local residents opposing the proposed closure of their Post Office in the parliamentary constituency of North East Derbyshire contains lengthy arguments in favour of the closure programme indicating that no special circumstances exist in their case and that their representations have already been dismissed; believes that it is not good enough for 80 per cent, of a Post Office letter supposedly relating to a current consultation process to prejudice the outcome; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that no decision is made about the future of the Coal Aston branch until a genuine and open assessment is made of the substantial representations which have been made.]
It relates to the response of the national consultative team of the Post Office to the massive number of letters and the great petition presented to it. That response almost says that it is all a waste of time because the decision has already been made, as 80 per cent. of it tells them why it thinks that there should be changes in the Post Office programme.
If there is to be a consultative procedure, should it not be an open procedure and not a sham? Should not the Post Office at least have the good grace not to tell us that it is a sham in advance, during the time that it is taking place? Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to show how we will have genuine consultative procedures so that constituents' views can be listened to?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly draw that to the Secretary of State's attention. I agree with my hon. Friend that consultation on local post office closures in his constituency and throughout the country must be genuine, and I am sure that the Post Office will want to ensure that it is. Local post offices perform a vital function in local communities, but unfortunately, there have been progressive closures for decades. It is important that each closure should happen on its merits in the current context.
Pete Wishart (North Tayside): Can we have an early debate on the impact of tuition fees and foundation hospitals on Scotland and Wales? Being a Welsh Member, the Leader of the House will be aware of the negative financial implications for Scotland and Wales, not to mention issues relating to staff retention. For example, does he know whether the Treasury has made an assessment of the cost to Scotland and Wales; and is he prepared to concede that there are issues here?
Mr. Hain: There are clearly issues here that are a proper matter for debate in the House—indeed, they have been debated and will continue be debated in the months to come. The really important question that the hon. Gentleman must answer is how he would plug the funding gap in universities. Universities were virtually bankrupt when we came to office in 1997. We have increased funding progressively and now propose to introduce a much fairer system of student finance that will especially support those at the bottom of the income
range. The Scottish National party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have no answer to the serious funding gap that will exist unless we allow students to contribute a small amount toward their university education. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, because taxpayers currently contribute £14 for every £1 contributed by students. I think that most taxpayers will say that our proposal is a fair deal because university graduates have a much greater opportunity to earn high incomes than others.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): Would it not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to come to the House as quickly as possible to make a statement on police training and the need to ensure that those with sickening racist views are excluded from the police as quickly as possible? Would it not also be appropriate for the reporter who made the programme that was shown on the BBC to be congratulated on carrying out an important public duty? The shadow Leader of the House did not raise the subject, so perhaps he is not interested in it, but Labour Members are interested. Racism must be fought, and there is certainly no room for racists of any kind in the police force.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |