| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: I am worried to hear of the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience and I am sure that the Minister concerned will want to meet him as soon as practicably possible, particularly as the hon. and learned Gentleman has been pressing the matter repeatedly and the Department is aware of his concerns about east midlands airport and the implications of the aviation White Paper. He might try to raise the matter again a week on Monday during the debate to which I referred at the beginning of business questions.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab): May we have an early statement on negotiations with the Government of Tanzania regarding asylum claims? On 25 February the Prime Minister told the House:
- "We are in negotiations with the Tanzanian Government on how we can process claims for asylum nearer to the country of origin."—[Official Report, 25 February 2004, Vol. 418, c.277.]
- "These partnerships are not about processing asylum claims nearer to the country of origin."—[ Official Report, 2 March, Vol. 418, c.892W.]
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will want to note my hon. Friend's points, but I am sure that she will agree that it is sensible to negotiate with all countries to make sure that the problem of asylum is dealt with more speedily and satisfactorily, closer to where people originate from. I am sure she will also be pleased that the number of asylum seekers to Britain has halved under the policies that we are implementing and that removals are 24 per cent. up on last year, to record numbers. We are getting a grip on this problem, but getting other countries to help in whatever way they can is part of that process.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): May we have an early debate on the outrageous activities that have been taking place at the Royal Free hospital since 1995, where the inflammatory bowel disease study group has been carrying out lumbar punctures and a battery of other invasive tests on autistic children without proper research or clinical ethical approval, which was granted only for clinically investigative activities on children with disintegrative disorder? Yet the paper published in The Lancet yesterday, partly retracted by some of the authors, reveals that none of the children subjected to these tests had disintegrative disorder.
This is a serious matter because children are not allowed by law to be used as research guinea pigs. Clearly, any consent to these investigations may well be invalidated by the lack of such ethical approval. Does the Leader of the House feel that the time is now right for a national health service or an independent inquiry? Can we at least have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on this matter?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the issue. Certainly, the matter will be taken careful note of, given the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised it today.
Points of Order
1.27 pm
Mr. Ivan Henderson (Harwich) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I ask for your guidance and advice to Members of this House regarding parliamentary protocol in the case of Members asking questions in this House on behalf of constituents of other Members when contacted by them. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) recently visited my constituency, met a group of my constituents and returned to the House and asked several questions about my primary care trust, right down to localised issues regarding individual GP surgeries. I understood that if constituents contacted a Member representing another constituency, the issues would be referred back to the relevant Member of Parliament to raise them on behalf of his constituents. Can you, Mr. Speaker, make a ruling or give us guidance for the future on how to deal with issues regarding other Members' constituents?
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will answer the point of order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. There is a well understood convention in the House that unless otherwise agreed between the Members concerned the interests of electors should be represented only by the constituency Member. It is not possible, however, for me as Speaker to ensure that this convention is enforced at all times. It is best to leave it to the good sense of Members to work out any problems between them. I hope that this is of help to the hon. Gentleman.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the years of Labour Opposition, their spokesmen asked a series of questions, sometimes generally and sometimes on individual health authorities covering constituencies. I hope that the convention of this House will remain that Opposition spokesmen for health may ask questions on health anywhere in the country. If we do not keep that, the limits on Opposition spokesmen would be greater than they were when the Labour party was in Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: That is different from the situation that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) put to me. I see no problem in what the hon. Gentleman raises.
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, we held an important debate on the protection of vulnerable children, during which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was asked about Conservative expenditure and insisted, at column 972, that the Conservatives would match all Government expenditure in the areas of education and health. However, the shadow Chancellor has said that the Conservatives intend to match expenditure on health and schools, which is very different. Is it not
essential, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members and people who listen to our proceedings be given accurate information?
Mr. Speaker: I am not allowed to take part in the debates of the House, even the day after.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and advice, as you are a defender of Members' interests and, like me, seek to give the best possible service to your constituents. Whenever possible, I try to answer all my mail on the day I receive it, but Ministers are increasingly in the habit of predating mail sent to me—sometimes by as much as 14 days before. This morning, I received a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry dated 24 February. As my constituents may think that I, rather than Ministers, have my eye off the ball, will you draw Ministers' attention to the fact that they should not predate mail sent to Members so that we can give our constituents the service they deserve?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Ministers concerned will read Hansard and note the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that when the statement about new proposals for a supreme court was made, the impression was given that the judges had been consulted and that all was well. However, you will know that the noble and learned Lord Woolf gave a speech in which he made it extremely clear that he is very unhappy about those proposals. Given those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, have you received a request from a Minister to come to this place to make a statement explaining why those two impressions are so different?
Mr. Speaker: The Bill is before the other place and it is a matter for debate in that House.
BILL PRESENTED
Independent Milk Ombudsman, Etc.
Mr. Simon Thomas presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of an Independent Milk Ombudsman and for his functions, including undertaking investigations and research into the price structure of the milk market; to make provision about the milk industry; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed. [Bill 66].
ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
- That this House agrees with the Report [2nd March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Gillian Merron.]
Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
1.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I beg to move,
- That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.
Our concerns include instances where the Bill, as it stands, appears to seek to duplicate existing legislation and where we are unable to see what it will actually mean on the ground for councils or carers. I appreciate that my hon. Friend's intention in the Bill is to support the Government's objective to support carers by creating conditions that will help to combat carers' experiences of social exclusion, promote carers' health and well-being, provide better information and ensure that they are offered a carers assessment. Those overarching aims mirror those set out in the Government's national strategy for carers, published in 1999. It is important to note that the strategy remains a document representative of the needs and wishes of carers. In addition, the Bill would foster better joint working between local councils and other public bodies such as the national health service, to deliver a more coherent service for carers—an area in which I acknowledge that things have not moved as fast as we would have liked.
Let me make it clear to the House. This is a private Member's Bill and as such has no funds attached to it. The proposals set out in the Bill, including any amendments, will have to be covered by existing resources, but the fact that there is a money resolution shows that there may be costs associated with the Bill's provisions and that we need an opportunity to debate them. I should also make it clear, however, that the Government believe that, subject to amendments, the Bill will not place an onerous burden on councils.
The Bill mainly places duties on councils to consider carers and to include them in their normal processes, including their dealings with the health service. Overall, it is about culture change—reinforcing the approaches developed in earlier legislation—and could be described as the "think carers" Bill.
First, I shall deal with the parts of the Bill where we believe we can work with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon to deliver tangible benefits to carers. I
shall then turn my attention to those aspects of the Bill that, as they stand, either require us to be needlessly prescriptive to councils or duplicate existing duties—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |