| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proliferation of commercial self-storage warehouses across London? Does he understand the relationship between those people who are put into temporary accommodation or made homeless and the fact that their goods and property are then stored at public expense? Is he as outraged as I am by a story that was related to me by a constituent who came to my constituency surgery two weeks ago? She told me that a sofa that she purchased new for less than £800 has been stored at a cost of more than £10,000, at public expense. Does he not believe, as I do, that the spending of public money in that way should be investigated?
Mr. Hain: I must say that my hon. Friend has brought to my attention and to that of the House an episode and a practice of which I had no knowledge. I am sure that the relevant Ministers will want to take extremely close note of what he has said and to take the necessary action—if it is in their power to take such action, given that those commercial self-storage warehouses are presumably private operations. Clearly, public money should not be wasted to the extent that he implies.
Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): Is the Leader of the House aware of the problems associated with Mayflower—an automotive engineering company—going into administration, which has put at risk the entire British bus building industry? Owing to the dubious nature of Mayflower's management, workers' pensions have been put at risk. Will the Leader of the House please ask his colleagues to introduce proposals to deal with the pensions of employees in that situation and arrange a wider debate on the future of the bus building industry in this country?
Mr. Hain: I did read reports to that effect, and they are very disturbing indeed. There are echoes of the experience that I have had in Wales with the ASW workers who lost their pensions when the company went into liquidation. In fact, they were robbed of their pensions. That is precisely why we plan to pass pensions legislation to give proper protection to workers so that they do not suffer from such scandals in the future.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware of whether the Government intend to bring forward the report on the coal health compensation scheme, application for which ended yesterday? In particular, will they consider the matters raised in early-day motion 818 about legal charges?
[That this House expresses its continued concerns about solicitors who charge clients in addition to the costs paid by the Department of Trade and Industry; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all solicitors sign an undertaking guaranteeing that they will not levy any charges from the compensation paid to miners, former miners or their families in respect of coal health claims, and that the Department of Trade and Industry does not make any payments to solicitors until such an undertaking has been signed.]
There are suspicions that solicitors have levied extra charges. If the Government consider such matters, will they look at the situation in Scotland? Although the Law Society of Scotland says that there is no double charging in Scotland, we find that there are a number of so-called arrangement companies—one of which is called IDIC and is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Owens—that are putting adverts in the paper. Very elderly people then phone them up, and all they do is pass them on to a solicitor—that seems to me to be collusion—who sends them a form to sign over 10 per cent. of their claim to the arrangement company. I have found a solicitor who does that and I want the Government to look at it very seriously—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going on rather long.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises a very serious matter. We have many examples—I have had to look into some in Wales—of claims farmers advertising and getting sometimes vulnerable elderly people or widows to make claims that the claims farmers are unable to handle. The claims are simply posted to a solicitor, and the claims farmers then charge those people. In some cases, they charge thousands of pounds. The Government's compensation scheme, which has been responsible for payments of well over £1 billion—in fact, I think that the figure is nearing £2 billion nationwide—makes it expressly clear that solicitors and other legal costs will be paid for under the scheme and rules out any charges on former miners and sick miners who have lung disease or vibration white finger, or their families. They are not allowed to be charged under the terms of the scheme. That iniquitous practice by claims farmers must end and, indeed, the Government are looking into it.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): In endorsing what the Leader of the House said about the importance of the letter from Iqbal Sacranie to the imams urging respect for law and order and peace and security in this country, may we have a statement soon from the Home Secretary about the future role of the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism?
It is not sufficiently appreciated that the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism is one and the same as the Minister with responsibility for immigration. Given the difficulties—I put it no higher than that—that attend immigration issues at present, is it not time now for the Government finally to recognise that we need a separate Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism, as we on the Opposition Benches have argued all along?
Mr. Hain: First, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's consistent work in fighting racism. I very much agree
with him about Iqbal Sacranie. As for counter-terrorism, I know from personal experience that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team have that firmly in their sights. Indeed, my right hon. Friend is involved almost daily in counter-terrorism work. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Cabinet Minister with responsibility for fighting terrorism is on the case on a daily basis and is taking some tough decisions to protect us. I hope that he will have the hon. Gentleman's support when he does that.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the campaign mounted by thousands of my constituents to have a proper St. George's day celebration? I am pleased to say that it has been taken on board, wisely, by council leader Bill Thomas. Does my right hon. Friend think that the House should celebrate St. George? We have an annual St. David's day debate; could we have an annual St. George's day debate? When my right hon. Friend is answering my question, will he take time to condemn proposals to introduce the single transferable vote for the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Hain: I am happy to say that I disagree with the Richard commission's proposal for a single transferable vote. As my hon. Friend knows, I am a long-standing opponent, as I think he is, of proportional representation. I do not think that that policy will go much further than the Richard commission. That will certainly be the case if I have anything to do with it.
My hon. Friend makes the novel suggestion that there should be St. George's day celebrations. It is an interesting idea. We have a St. David's day debate. I am not aware that we have St. Patrick's day or a St. Andrew's day celebrated or debated in the House. No doubt it is a matter that I shall have to examine closely now that my hon. Friend has raised the issue in such a cordial fashion.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Now that the ping-pong is over, could we have a thoughtful and temperate debate about the role of the House of Lords? The other place is now in the shape the Government want and they have no further proposals to change it. What are peers' responsibilities, in particular, for Bills that are not foreshadowed in the Labour party's manifesto and for ensuring that no Government use their majority to gerrymander the electoral system?
Mr. Hain: I am up for a temperate and thoughtful debate on any issue. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to carry on in that fashion, he will find me a ready partner. The ping-pong has again revealed—I am glad that the House of Lords saw common sense by 30 votes in the end—the need to deal with the powers and procedures of the other place. Its procedures are chaotic and Governments do not have a proper ability to manage business, with the consent of the usual channels. Its powers need to be examined. On this occasion, the House of Lords backed down at the last minute, which was welcome. However, there was consistent defiance of clear votes in this place, principally orchestrated by Conservative peers, who are in a majority over Labour peers, even though Conservative Members are a small minority in this place.
Far from backing off, we are considering closely future legislation to deal not only with the issue of compensation but with restricting the power of the Lords to defy the will of the Commons. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and revise—not to veto.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I welcome the fact that my constituents will be able to have an all-postal ballot in June. It will be good for democracy because it will be good for turnout.
I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange a debate on the excellent work that is carried out by the youth service. It provides good facilities and engages in worthwhile activities that often divert young people from less worthwhile activities that can lead to serious antisocial behaviour. As part of that debate, could we contrast the future of the youth service under a Government whose policy is to provide extra funds for local government, which can lead to further improvements in youth service delivery, with another scenario where significant cuts in the budgets of local councils will lead to the closure of youth clubs, the sacking of youth workers and a rise in antisocial behaviour?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |