| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is right that his constituents will have the opportunity, because of the leadership shown by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues, to vote in the comfort of their own homes. As he has said, that is good for democracy because it is good for turnout, whomsoever may benefit from that turnout.
As for the youth service, my hon. Friend is right that local authority budgets under this Government will continue to rise in accordance with the planned increases in spending. If we were to see a £2.5 billion cut in local government budgets, as the plans of the shadow Chancellor foresee, we would have a decimation of services that are provided for the youth of this country, and an increase in antisocial behaviour would follow as a result.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the rebuilding of Iraq so that, first, we can congratulate our forces on their professionalism, courage and moderation in the work that they do in that country, and secondly, have regard to the money under the oil-for-food programme and the development fund—which is now well over £3 billion—and ensure that it is released as early as possible so that the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shi'ites, the Turkamens and the other ethnic groups can use the money to start building hospitals and schools in Iraq?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman brings a voice of common sense to the Chamber on these matters, which I welcome. Our soldiers and others are doing a fantastic job in rebuilding Iraq. As the survey of Iraqis recently showed, that is getting the support of the population in overwhelming numbers. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his points with even greater eloquence when there is a debate on Wednesday 21 April in Westminster Hall.
Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): I am sure that my right hon. Friend will remember that at the time of the
referendum for a Welsh Assembly we were told that Wales was run by quangos. To rectify that wrong, we first had to vote for a Welsh Assembly, and then give it the powers to make a bonfire of the quangos. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are now even more quangos in Wales than there were when the Assembly was first established. They are more powerful today than when the Assembly was first established.My right hon. Friend will also be aware that yesterday the Richard commission reported its conclusions. Not surprisingly, it merely repeated the words of its master, Rhodri Morgan, and demanded more powers for the Welsh Assembly. Some of us believe that before pushing for more powers, it should use the powers that it already has. Let us have a debate on the report of the Richard commission, please.
Mr. Hain: I would be quite happy to have a debate on the Richard report. As for a bonfire of quangos, my hon. Friend will know that a number of quangos were taken under the auspices of the Assembly, where they could be better held accountable. A number of other non-departmental organisations have been established to carry out new functions, which has been the practice across Britain.
As for the Richard commission's report, I look forward to detailed consultations with my hon. Friend and other Back-Bench colleagues of all parties, with Cabinet colleagues and also with members of the Welsh Assembly Cabinet to ascertain whether there is a basis for moving forward. I do not think that the model that is outlined to its full extent in the Richard commission's report really provides that basis. If there were to be a Scottish Parliament option, there would have to be a referendum. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that. I think that the number of Members of Parliament needs to stay the same in Wales. I think also that the electoral system that has been operating for the Welsh Assembly is deeply flawed—a point that was recognised by the Richard commission.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): As a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, may I put it to the Leader of the House that he has singularly failed to answer questions properly put by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) concerning our report, which was published earlier this morning, entitled "Privilege: Protection of a Witness"?
As the Leader of the House quoted partially from paragraph 34, may I complete the quote? We said:
- "We urge the Government to treat this as a matter of urgency. The House should be consulted on the terms of any proposed guidance."
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's request in mind. It is a new report, out today, and we will study it carefully. We have welcomed the Committee's conclusion that Ministers had regard only to their policy objective of giving CAFCASS a fresh start as soon as possible, and we fully accept the
findings. There is no dubiety about that. We fully accept the findings and the Lord Chancellor has unreservedly apologised.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): May we have an early debate on why, with so much money voted by the House for health, district general hospitals like mine are short of money, short of management freedom and short of capacity to deal with all the demands being placed upon them?
Mr. Hain: I do not know about the individual situation in the right hon. Gentleman's hospital, but I assume that he supports a policy advocated by those on his Front Bench that will result in £2 billion being taken out of—robbed from—the national health service, to go down the road and follow patients—who can probably afford to have private operations anyway—under the Conservatives infamous patients passport scheme. So I cannot see how the predicament that he describes locally will be improved by the Conservatives; indeed, it will be made worse. We are consistently putting in more and more resources, which are locked in for many years to come.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Is the Leader of the House up for a thoughtful and temperate debate on the investigative powers of Select Committees? Of course everyone welcomes the Prime Minister coming before the Liaison Committee twice a year and extra staff for Select Committees, but as the recent experience of the Foreign Affairs Committee demonstrated, it is almost impossible to get Ministers to answer questions that they do not want to answer or to provide information that they do not want to give. It is almost a quarter of a century since departmental Select Committees came into being. Would not this be a good time for the Leader of the House and the Liaison Committee to have a discussion about how the investigative ability of departmental Select Committees could be improved?
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): Get decent questions.
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend reminds us that we need decent questions. The hon. Gentleman's point is a fair one, and of course I am up for a thoughtful exchange with him and fellow Select Committee Chairs about the powers of investigation and accountability of Select Committees.
ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004
Point of Order
2.53 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East) (Lab): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter that is causing me some problems as a Member of Parliament. Over the past 11 years, when I have written to the chief executive of my local council I have had a reply from her or the chief officer. Since the Scottish nationalist party gained minority control of the council, Mr. David Alexander, the SNP council leader, has been replying to my letters—he has done so on three occasions. I have tried to persuade him that that is not his role. I can find nothing in the council minutes to say that he has that authority. I seek your advice on how I can deal with the matter. Surely it is breach of privilege that he intercepts my letters or deals with them and does not let the council take its proper course or let the chief executive reply.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is not a matter that the Chair of the House can deal with; it is a matter for the local authority concerned.
Easter Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.54 pm
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): It is a pleasure to address the House with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as some of the matters that I shall raise relate to an area that you know well in north-east Wales, as you come from the constituency next door to mine. In a week in which there has been some discussion of the report from Lord Richard—known commonly as the Richard commission report—I shall take the opportunity to raise matters that are of concern not just in Wales, but in the House about the responsibilities of Members of the House and the way in which the United Kingdom is governed.
Devolution has had a huge and, in my view, beneficial effect on Wales. As a native of north-east England, when I first moved to Wrexham way back in 1986, it was difficult at times to know that one was in Wales. I moved just across the border seven years later—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |