| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West): Will the Leader of the House give us some indication of when we shall have the opportunity to debate the higher education Bill and the flawed plans—in my view—to introduce student top-up fees?
Mr. Hain: We will obviously find time to discuss the matter and, indeed, it has been discussed regularly in Education questions and when the Secretary of State made his statement. I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to join me in opposing any policy that the Government could adopt that would echo the Conservatives' policy of denying at least 100,000 students the opportunity to study at university while plunging our universities into the financial chaos from which we have rescued them since we have been in government.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West): When can we discuss early-day motion 1902, which congratulates the
Government on their courageous and far-sighted proposals on identity cards, which will deal with the serious and growing problems of identity theft and fraud?[That this House congratulates the Government on its far-sighted proposal to deal with the growing problems of identity theft and fraud; believes that conscientious objections to identity cards on the basis of liberty and privacy can be overcome by the use of zero knowledge protocol which will allow speedy identification while biometrically protecting confidential information which will not be stored on a central database; and is convinced that this protocol will make identity cards acceptable by also providing new access to services for users.]
The EDM urges the Government to examine ways in which objections on conscientious grounds about liberty and confidentiality could be overcome by using zero knowledge protocols, which would biometrically protect the confidentiality of the information and avoid the use of a central database. With that system in place, virtually all the objections to identity cards could be overcome.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. As he knows, the Home Secretary announced the Government's intention to proceed with consulting on and taking forward a programme to introduce identity cards. He also knows that we are effectively a long way down that road, given the need for biometrics on driving licences and passports that is coming up. I am informed that it might not be possible to get into the United States of America in one or two years unless one carries a biometric because that is one of the security measures that the country is introducing. The Home Secretary will obviously consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe): I am sure that the Leader of the House recognises that we in Sheffield warmly welcome the substantial increases in funding for the national health service, which has produced improvements in the treatment of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. However, I hope that he will arrange a debate on the priority—some would say the lack of priority—given to mental health services. The Sheffield community health trust recently announced an overspend for this year of £650,000, which has led to the partial temporary closure of a brand new respite care unit, among other things. We also have no 24-hour crisis intervention service in the city and there is inadequate funding for adult outreach services and early intervention services for young people. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that we can give publicity to those issues and hopefully get more priority for those services?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the issues to which my hon. Friend draws our attention are of concern and he will want to pursue them as a constituency MP. I am sure that he will agree that the Government have accorded mental health the status of being one of their four main priorities on health policy. There must be delivery across the board throughout the country, so perhaps the issue needs to be considered in the context of his Sheffield constituency.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): The water framework directive has massive implications for our water quality,
supply and cost in addition to much broader environmental implications. The directive must be transposed into national law by the end of 2003. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials tell me that our regulations are ready to be published but the House will consider them only under the negative procedure. Does my right hon. Friend think that the matter, which the Select Committee described as hugely important, will merit a full debate in Government time in December when the regulations appear?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter but he will understand that, with the Queen's Speech debate ending in early December and the need to send him and colleagues packing in time for Christmas, it is not possible for me to promise him such a debate.
Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): Is my right hon. Friend familiar with early-day motion 1793 on the topic of the 60th anniversary of D-day?
[That this House notes that 6th June 2004 will mark the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings; recognises the sacrifice made by thousands of service personnel on this day and throughout the Second World War; congratulates the Government on issuing free passports for those veterans wishing to travel to France to mark the anniversary but expresses concern at the apparent low key nature in which the United Kingdom Government intends to commemorate this day; and calls on the Government to ensure that the 60th anniversary commemorations are a fitting tribute to the veterans who will attend and honour all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom.]
Several people raised the matter with me last weekend at Remembrance day services. They want the House to find a proper and sensitive way to commemorate the event, and I think that there would be all-party support for that.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that there would be such support. The Government intend to ensure that the D-day celebrations are an important commemoration of the sacrifices made and the courage shown by those who took part in the D-day operation. I, too, was involved in Remembrance day services. I was greatly moved by the first ever national Welsh Remembrance day service on Sunday, as I am sure was the whole House.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): The House recently decided to pay some Select Committee Chairmen an additional £12,500 a year. However, there is no transparency about the way in which Members get on to Select Committees. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hold discussions with his opposite numbers in all political parties represented in the House and place in the Library a memorandum from each party specifying in some detail its procedures for putting Members on Select Committees?
Mr. Hain: This is obviously primarily a matter for the Committee of Selection but my hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It would be valuable if the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—and other parties, no doubt—published details of the way in which they select Committee members. We in the
parliamentary Labour party have a transparent procedure. Nominations are invited—people may nominate themselves—and the names go to our parliamentary committee, which is the Executive of the parliamentary Labour party. Indeed, my hon. Friend sat on that parliamentary committee until a week or two ago. The parliamentary committee recommends names to the full membership of the parliamentary Labour party, so the process is fully transparent and democratic. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats should at least match that process and the House should know about their procedures.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): Has my right hon. Friend noticed the significant growth of all-party parliamentary groups in this Parliament? The upside of that is that hon. Members can attend meetings of interesting groups but the downside is that pressure is being put on room bookings and attendance at meetings of long-established groups is going down. Has the time come to undertake a review of all-party groups, taking into account the views of all right hon. and hon. Members?
Mr. Hain: I understand the points that my hon. Friend raises, especially about congestion with room bookings. The matter is primarily for the Administration Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards rather than me, but I shall certainly look into it. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that one of the groups that was turned down for all-party group status was the Manchester United football supporters group. Speaking as a Chelsea fan, that gives me great pleasure.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): We have witnessed widespread failures across the board in all forms of privatisation. We have seen failing companies that work with local education authorities. There have been failures by Railtrack and the whole railway industry. The water industry has failed to invest in sewerage systems that need to be replaced because Victorian sewers are crumbling. There has been widespread failure in almost every area and we have heard comments today about PFI schemes, which are clearly causing problems and are horrendously expensive. Is it not time for my right hon. Friend to grant a thorough debate on the future of privatisation and whether we should think again about going back to proper public investment, which works better and is cheaper and publicly accountable?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |