| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): My constituent Michael Connell, a young man of 19 with learning difficulties, is in jail in Thailand facing charges of smuggling a small quantity of ecstasy tablets, thereby facing the possibility of a life sentence in a Bangkok jail. Leaving aside the interesting question of why Michael was arrested immediately on arriving in Bangkok—and which authorities provided the information to the Thai police that formed the basis of that arrest—does my
right hon. Friend agree that given the growing numbers of young people from the United Kingdom travelling the world to countries such as Thailand, where the judicial system is different from ours, we need a debate on the implications of foreign criminal justice systems for UK nationals? I pay tribute to the work of the embassy in Bangkok in assisting Michael Connell, but this issue potentially affects every parent in the United Kingdom with a son or daughter travelling internationally. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this matter?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for praising our embassy in Bangkok. All our embassies and posts overseas do extraordinarily important work on our behalf, often to incredibly high standards. The specific plight of his constituent, Michael Connell, will be of continuing concern, as the Foreign Office is involved. I know that the Foreign Office and the Home Secretary will want to look closely at the issue that my hon. Friend has quite properly brought to the attention of the House.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): Will the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on dentistry? In Teignbridge, six practices have deregistered or closed. Patients wishing to register with the NHS are now given the option of going to Plymouth or to Cullompton—32 miles away in either direction. Does the Leader of the House think that that is acceptable, particularly for people on benefits who, effectively, have been denied any NHS dental treatment?
Mr. Hain: I am not aware of the detail of the situation; obviously the hon. Gentleman, as the local MP, is. Those distances sound large to me. I know that the Secretary of State for Health will want to look closely at the matter, which the hon. Gentleman might like to follow up with an Adjournment debate or by lobbying the Department of Health.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): This week, senior members of the Government—including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—have acknowledged the need for greater dialogue before controversial matters reach the decision stage. Why has there been no debate in this House on genetically modified crops grown in this country? It is thought that the Government will take a decision on licensing GM maize within a month. Will he guarantee to the House that no decision will be taken until there has been a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her persistence in raising this matter, quite properly, in the House. Her concern about the future of genetic modification is shared widely across the House and the country. For that reason, as soon as we are in a position to do so we are committed to having a debate. I am sure that there will be no question of proceeding with any decision until the debate has occurred.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): May I say how much I agree with the Leader of the House about the conduct of politics in this country?
To that end, can we have a full debate on the future of the BBC? From the Hutton report, it is clear that Andrew Gilligan was wrong in the allegations that he made on the "Today" programme; the BBC management was wrong in not investigating the Government's claims properly; and the board of governors of the BBC was wrong in not making its own investigations into those complaints. In my view, the BBC is handling its response to the Hutton report in a defensive and arrogant way. In the face of the criticisms in the Hutton report, all of the BBC governors—not just the chairman—should resign, and so should the director-general and the head of news. Can we have an urgent debate to discuss these important issues facing the BBC?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure when and where there might be an opportunity for such a debate, but the hon. Gentleman raises some serious points. Essentially, I take his point to be about the standard of journalism in the BBC as identified by the Hutton report, particularly the Andrew Gilligan episode. His wider point is about the standard of journalism in the media and its interaction with politics. We are not innocents; Ministers and Opposition politicians are caught up in the 24-hour news agenda swirl. Instead of seeking to report, challenge and question what is going on, journalism now seems to be trying to set its own agenda. That is the heart of the problem that the BBC has got itself into and from which it must escape.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I refer my right hon. Friend to the decision that the House took on tuition fees on Tuesday, which, for many of us, was the culmination of a highly unsatisfactory process. Will he find time for a debate—and will he consult widely—on how we can involve Back Benchers more fully in the production of policy, particularly in complicated areas such as higher education funding? In particular, will he give thought to the greater use of Green Papers by the Government, the regular use of draft Bills and the fuller involvement of Select Committees in considering such matters?
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are reflecting on the lessons of the Higher Education Bill, and we discussed the matter in Cabinet this morning. The policy was absolutely right, but the process that led to the Second Reading debate this week could have been improved. My hon. Friend makes suggestions about pre-legislative scrutiny—which would involve all hon. Members—and, in a Labour party context, using the policy-making processes of the parliamentary party and the national policy forum. Through that process, hard choices can be made and not ducked. It is important that we bear that in mind, as the Prime Minister is emphasising in his speech today. Better understanding and consent can be created and improvements can be made, as occurred in a rather haphazard and frantic way in the last few days leading up to the Second Reading debate. That could have been done far more effectively. The short answer is that lessons have been learned and are being learned.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): If there is any truth in what the Leader of the House says,
and following his bizarre lectures to us today about integrity in politics, will he use all his influence to ensure that the Standing Committee considering on the Higher Education Bill contains a proper proportion of Members of Parliament—particularly Government Back Benchers—to cover the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has just made? Surely at the very least Labour Members should be able to scrutinise the Bill to ensure that the undertakings made at the last minute to get the Government's narrow majority are held to by the Government right through the scrutiny of the Bill. May we have a simple undertaking from the Leader of the House that the Standing Committee considering the Bill will reflect the requests being made by his own Back Benchers, to say nothing of Opposition Members?
Mr. Hain: The point has been made before and I have answered it. The Committee of Selection will consider the matter seriously. During the Standing Committee's detailed consideration of the Bill, we might find out the Conservative party's policy on the future of higher education. So far, we have had some clear signals—[Interruption.] Presumably, any amendments tabled by Conservative Members in Committee will project a different policy. So far, all we have had is a policy for cutting the number of students by up to 400,000, a policy for removing the grants that the Bill will bring in and a policy, briefed to The Guardian, of privatising universities in the future. If that is the alternative debated in Committee, I am confident that the Government will win the argument.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): We are promised referendums on regional assemblies in October. Would it not be a disgrace if they were carried on a tiny turnout? Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment on my two-clause private Member's Bill, which sets a 50 per cent. threshold on turnouts for the result of a referendum to be validated, not to try to derail it when it comes to the House on 27 February?
Mr. Hain: I am not impressed by devices such as that. A vote takes place democratically, people choose whether to vote and we must respect the outcome. What we have done and are doing, including in the north-west of England, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency, is to hold all-postal vote ballots, which will give electors the opportunity to vote in comfort and at their convenience, and I hope that it will boost turnout. To the extent, that I agree with his points: the greater the turnout, the more legitimate the outcome, whether at a general election or a referendum. However, it should not be done by imposing an artificial threshold.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |