| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brazier: Yes, cuts in administration.
Mr. Hain: Ah, I see. The hon. Gentleman wants the further support that we have provided withdrawn from some of the most vulnerable groups in our communities.
On the wider issue—what was it?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): Jobcentres.
Mr. Hain: Yes, jobcentres. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will know, the Government are seeking to bring together benefits agencies with jobcentres, and I guess that that must at least in part be the explanation for the issue that he raises. It is a sensible thing to do, and I should have thought that he would support a one-stop shop to provide people with the opportunity to come off benefit and welfare into work in a way that record numbers of people are doing and have done under this Government. Employment is now at its highest ever, unemployment is at its lowest for a generation, and people who have not been able to get work because they have been caught between benefit and job opportunities are now getting the chance to
work and the extra hope and opportunity that that brings. The hon. Gentleman should be applauding that, not criticising it.
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): May I ask my right hon. Friend when we shall have a date for a decision on the location of new airports in this country? I am sure that he will be aware that there is widespread concern in Coventry and in Warwickshire regarding a proposed airport for Rugby. May we have a date for that decision?
Mr. Hain: This is obviously a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is actively considering. I know that my hon. Friend is a champion of airports in his area, and the Secretary of State is well aware of the importance that he attaches to those airports, and of the important role that they play in the region.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): The Leader of the House has dealt very lightly with the concerns of my hon. Friends about the Minister for Children. The problem is that the last four or five months of her tenure in office have been completely bedevilled by her fighting rearguard actions about her suitability for that post, which has been seriously called into question by her irrational remarks this week. If the Leader of the House is so convinced that his Government now have the most rigorous policy on child protection, why cannot we have a debate on it? May I remind him that in the 10 months since Lord Laming produced his report on 28 January, there has been not a single debate in Government time on child protection matters? There was one statement on the Green Paper on 8 September, which lacked an awful lot of detail. If he is so impressed by his policy, cannot we have a debate in the House and put it to the test properly?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot anticipate at this stage what will come in the Queen's Speech. I assure him, however, that over the course of the coming year or so the work that was initiated in the Green Paper on children's rights, into which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children put a great deal of work, will be debated fully in the House, and he will have every opportunity to raise whatever issues he wants.
Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West): Since I entered the House in 1987, I have been campaigning for victims and their families who suffered from asbestos pollution in my constituency. In the 1990s, we won a court case to prove that the company was liable. The company was then bought by an American company, Federal Mogul, which bought the parent company, Turner and Newell. Some three years ago, that American company put the whole operation in Britain into liquidation to avoid paying out to the families and their victims. We now learn that the administrators have in the last two years received £75 million from the funds—the victims have received nothing. I refer my right hon. Friend to the early-day motion tabled on this subject, and I ask the House and the Government to have a discussion on this
matter and to look into the responsibilities of corporate insurance. This issue affects hundreds of thousands of our constituents who suffer from asbestos pollution.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has championed this cause—I am grateful to him because it is an issue that affects everyone—as he has championed many other causes both in his present role as a Back Bencher and in his distinguished ministerial career. On this particular issue, I shall consider his request. He has other opportunities to apply for a debate, and it would be good to give the issue an airing.
Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk): Given that the Treasury private finance initiative building incurred professional fees of £25,303,000, which is more than 20 per cent. of the total construction cost of the building, and the Home Office, for its PFI project, paid £2 million to the contractor for the insertion of a refinancing clause that should have been included anyway, can we have a debate next week in Government time on the Government's relationship with its PFI contractors? At the moment, it looks as though the contractors are running rings around this Government.
Mr. Hain: I do not accept that for a moment. I do not anticipate an early debate, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to apply for one if he wishes.
Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North): May I inform my right hon. Friend that there is still major confusion about the future of the west coast main line, with Ministers, the regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin all saying different things? Can he arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House to clarify whether he is still committed to the full modernisation of the west coast main line by 2005 to Liverpool, and by 2008 to Scotland? It would be an opportunity to clear up some of the confusion that now arises over the scheme.
Mr. Hain: I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State understands my hon. Friend's point. I know that my hon. Friend will also want to commend my right hon. Friend, however, on the expert way in which he is driving forward unprecedented investment in railway stock and in the railways, to try to deliver the first-class railway service that this country needs but of which it has been deprived for many long years, not least because of the abject failure of the Conservative party in government to invest in the railway system.
Bob Spink (Castle Point): May we have a debate on the impact of overdevelopment in the south-east, which has been forced on us, against the people's wishes, by the Deputy Prime Minister? We could consider the impact of that overdevelopment on communities such as Castle Point, where the quality of life is already severely affected by congestion and by the lack of investment in our infrastructure.
Mr. Hain: The Government are very concerned about congestion in the south-east and are taking action to do what we can to address it in terms of modernisation of
our transport system and planning policy. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that powerful economic forces are at work in the south-east of England, which has been booming for a number of years. That is at the root of the problem. It is not easy to resolve that with any quick fixes.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester): Is my right hon. Friend aware of my constituents, Mills and Poole, who served 13 years in prison for a murder that they did not commit? From answers to written questions over recent weeks, I understand that there are 58 people in this land in a similar position, who are waiting 182 days on average before their eligibility for compensation is assessed, and there are further processes to take place before they receive their compensation. That is a long time to wait for an interim compensation payment in relation to a crime that those people did not commit. Can my right hon. Friend prevail on the Home Office to make a statement on this issue?
Mr. Hain: One hundred and eighty-two days is indeed a very long time to wait. My hon. Friend will obviously understand that these claims must be properly assessed to conform to the correct procedures. I commend him on raising this matter, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to respond and look at the matter urgently, because it is a real concern, as he said.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford): The Leader of the House will be aware that we have regular opportunities to debate the affairs of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Although the House of Commons makes laws and decisions that affect the British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, no debate ever takes place on those territories for which we are responsible. Will the Leader of the House allow the House to have an annual debate on the overseas territories so that we may discuss issues that relate to them, bearing in mind that the people who live there have no elected representation in the British Parliament?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman, of course, has the opportunity to apply for an Adjournment debate on a range of issues, and that subject could be one of them, if he wished.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |