| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: I wonder whether that might include Ministers from the period when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister. For example, on the Equitable Life issue, he did not advocate the improvements in the regulatory system that might have prevented the desperation now felt by Equitable Life
policyholders. I understand that that matter was debated in Westminster Hall, although I do not know whether he took part.
Mr. Forth: No, I was not there.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman did not take part in that debate because he is conducting a one-man boycott of Westminster Hall. The debates there continue with or without him, and although I am sure that they would be much more colourful if he were present, if he chooses to boycott them he cannot expect any justice from me when he asks such questions.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): May we have an urgent debate on devolution? The Leader of the House will know that some politicians in this country argue that we should completely change the way in which the national health service and the education system are run, by introducing vouchers or passports for schools and hospitals. Can he tell us how those schemes would apply in Wales and Scotland, where those matters are devolved? Would the Conservative party, if it came to power, have to dismantle the whole devolution settlement to impose those schemes on Wales and Scotland?
Mr. Hain: That is an interesting question because, as my hon. Friend said, the devolution settlement has devolved responsibility for education delivery and policy to Wales and Scotland. If the Conservatives, or anyone else, sought to bring in a schools voucher system, of which we saw a poor example in the old nursery schools voucher scheme—we abolished that immediately when we came to office—there would be a revolt in Wales, Scotland and the whole nation, including every part of England. People do not want to see our schools robbed of money so that children can be taken down the road to private schools, nor do they want to see their hospitals robbed of up to £2 billion because people can take money out of the national health service to go down the road to private hospital provision.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): Following that answer, is the Leader of the House aware that the draft disability discrimination Bill refers specifically to England, with references to Wales and Scotland, but explicitly states that it does not extend to Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the disability lobby in Northern Ireland and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland are concerned about that? Will he consult his colleagues to see whether the Bill can be extended before it passes through the House, so that people with disabilities in Northern Ireland can have the same facilities as those in the rest of the kingdom?
Mr. Hain: Ministers are aware of that matter and will have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's question. We want to see protection right across the United Kingdom, but it cannot always be delivered in the same Bill, given the Northern Ireland settlement, as I know that he will understand.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): Will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement on the working of permitted development orders? Those orders are allowing the despoliation of the English countryside and seaside. Railtrack is currently completing what I accept is essential safety work and fencing along the beautiful red-stone cliffs of south Devon, which many Members who have used the train to the west country will have seen. The design of the work is an eyesore, involving galvanised steel fencing and posts that can be seen for miles from the sea. If permitted development orders were revised, we could stop such despoliation.
Mr. Hain: The cliffs of south Devon are indeed beautiful, and the hon. Gentleman is lucky if they are in his constituency. Obviously, the reconstruction of our rail network and the investment that we are putting into infrastructure across the country are designed to improve standards, but not at the expense of the environment. I am sure that his point has been noted.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): May we have an urgent debate on planning policy in relation to telecommunications masts? I do not know what the experience of the Leader of the House as a constituency Member is, but in Worcestershire there has been a sharp increase in concern, probably because of the new generation of masts. Such a debate might enable Ministers to provide reassurance on health issues and to listen to practical suggestions for improvements in the planning process that would ensure that local people's voices were better heard.
Mr. Hain: I agree that it is important that the voices of local people from Worcestershire and the entire country are better heard. There is a balance to be struck between the important extension of new mobile communications and local environmental impact, as the hon. Gentleman will agree. We must get that balance right.
Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the National Audit Office report on "Estimating the Level of Spirits Fraud" that has just been published. It concludes:
- "Neither survey estimate can be accepted as unequivocally reliable, and great care is needed in determining what reliance can be placed on the results at present available."
Mr. Hain: I am sure that, as a Scot, one of the last things that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wants to do is to damage the Scottish whisky industry, and he will have noted the point that the hon. Member for
Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) has made. Perhaps I can take the liberty of telling the House that a wonderful Welsh malt whisky, Penderyn, was recently launched as the first such Welsh single malt whisky. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Scots will taste it in due course, to see what a competitive rival has come from Wales.
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park) (LD): Thank you for calling me and for giving me this exercise, Mr. Speaker—as you can see, I need it.
When Members voted on the motion to go to war with Iraq, we were promised progress on the middle east peace process. In view of the high-level visits that we have had in the past week from Israeli Ministers and Palestinian Ministers, and in view of the deteriorating situation in that area, could the Leader of the House arrange for us to have a debate on the middle east peace process in this Chamber, in Government time?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Lady is right to continue to draw our attention to the tragic stalemate—if I may call it that—between Israelis and Palestinians in the middle east, with its awful consequences of terrorism, killings and continued tension and violence. We must never forget what is happening there, which is why the Prime Minister is engaged almost daily in trying to unlock the problems and move forward. If there is a chance for such a debate, we will take it. Of course, the hon. Lady has the opportunity to apply for such a debate at any time.
Point of Order
1.29 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, the Opposition have campaigned long and hard to try to provide some support to Allied Steel and Wire workers and others who have lost out in pension wind-ups, and we strongly supported the Bill that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) introduced. In those circumstances, is it right for the Leader of the House to be able to turn to me in the middle of business questions, when I cannot respond, to ask me what my party has done or would do about those wind-ups? There is a clear answer, but I am not able to give it in those circumstances. Is it in order for the Leader of the House to behave in that way, or is it possible that I have the right to ask a further question when specifically challenged in that way? One way or the other, it is wrong that the impression should be given that the Opposition do not have policies in an area where we have been leading the campaign.
Mr. Speaker: This is an hour devoted to business questions. If the questions and answers were about the business of the House, we would not get into these difficulties.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): But no one would come to business questions.
Mr. Speaker: Exactly. Then it would be less than an hour.
ESTIMATES DAY
[2nd Allotted Day]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2003–04
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |