| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): I thank the Leader of the House for his robust comments on the proposed English cricket tour to Zimbabwe, but may I press him on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that there should be a debate, or at least a statement, in the House next week, following today's meeting of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Sport and Tourism with the England and Wales Cricket Board? Would not such a statement provide an opportunity for all parties in the House to join together to pressure the International Cricket Council to change its rules to allow the cancellation of such tours on the ground of moral issues, without fines being imposed?
Mr. Hain: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman on this. Undoubtedly, the villain of the piece at present is not just Robert Mugabe's despotic regime, but the way in which the ICC is turning a blind eye to that. I find that unacceptable, and it would be a good idea if we could explore—whether through a debate in the House or other means—how the focus of attention can be put on the ICC.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the future of post office closures? The closures are being done differently from in the past. In fact, enticement, bribery and every other means are being used to encourage post offices to close when we believe that they are viable businesses. There is no transparency, the books are not made available to make a rational judgment and the evidence needed to make the judgment is concealed. That is not an appropriate way to close post offices.
The losers are the public. Generally, old people use post offices. Many of the post offices involved are surrounded by old people's bungalows and sheltered accommodation. Those people will continue to need post offices. They will continue to live in those homes, but post offices will be unavailable to them. I plead with my right hon. Friend to arrange an open debate, with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry available to the House.
6 May 2004 : Column 1504
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes some serious allegations—the Secretary of State will want to take note of them and respond to him—but I agree with him in this respect: the local post office in my own village in my constituency is a fulcrum for the village. Pensioners and others dependent on benefits use it particularly actively. Pensioners in a former mining constituency such as mine do not have cars and cannot get down the valley easily, so the post office is a vital community facility. He is absolutely right about that.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): When will we debate the proposed referendum on an EU constitution? Although the Prime Minister could open such a debate, would it not be a good break with precedent to allow members of the Cabinet to speak in it and have their say—a say that they were denied around the Cabinet table? Perhaps the Leader of the House could respond to the debate, so that we could hear him eat his words before we go off and eat our dinner.
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I responded to a similar impudent point from the shadow Leader of the House a few weeks ago. This issue will be debated in due course, but how can we debate a referendum on a European constitutional treaty that has not yet even been finally negotiated, let alone agreed and signed? That is the point. He and the Conservative party decided that they opposed the draft constitutional treaty before it was even properly published and agreed in the European Convention, on which I represented the Government. They are still pressing the same position when the negotiations have not finished. Let us see what is negotiated and whether agreement can be reached, and then we will decide how to proceed.
Jim Knight (South Dorset) (Lab): I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my concern about the levels of council tax. May we debate that important issue and particularly the effects—cuts in services or increases in council tax—if there were a two-year cash freeze on local government funding?
Mr. Hain: Of course, the consequences for council tax of a cash freeze on local government spending, which would cut local government funding by £2.4 billion, would be catastrophic. Council taxes would rise by 10 per cent. as a consequence of the spending plans promoted by the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Cabinet in the first two years of a Conservative Government. Local government spending would be cut by £2.4 billion, either savagely cutting services or sending council tax levels sky high. That is the prospect that awaits the people of Britain if they get a Conservative Government.
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con):
Will the Leader of the House find time to hold a debate on the Environment Agency's proposed amendments to the substitute fuels protocol that will, by sleight of hand,
6 May 2004 : Column 1505
allow waste materials to be rebadged as fuel and thus imported into this country for disposal at plants such as the Westbury cement works?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will want to take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point.
Helen Jones (Warrington, North) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the role played by police community support officers who make a valuable contribution to reducing crime and reassuring the population in my constituency? May we have an opportunity to debate both the possible expansion in the number of support officers and the effect that a £900 million cut in the Home Office and criminal justice budget would have on those people, whom we now have out on the streets reducing crime?
Mr. Hain: I would welcome an Opposition debate on that matter. My hon. Friend is right: it would be interesting to find out whether the Opposition could defend their policy of cutting Home Office expenditure by almost £1 billion, slashing the number of police officers and community support officers, who are vital to improving security in our communities and dealing with antisocial behaviour and the other intimidation that is visited upon senior citizens, especially. That is a question for the Opposition to answer in the coming election campaigns.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): Has the Leader of the House seen the reports in today's press that unscrupulous law firms are launching legal actions against British troops in Iraq? Will he make it categorically clear that no British troops, either in Iraq or any other theatre, will be subjected to claims under human rights legislation?
Mr. Hain: The Ministry of Defence is obviously very concerned about this matter. Indeed, the Government are concerned about it and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will follow the points that he makes and the whole situation very carefully.
Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the statement made yesterday by the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, about progress on reviewing baby death convictions following the Angela Cannings judgment. What arrangements will my right hon. Friend make for that issue to be debated in the House when that review is completed? It is a matter of enormous concern for all parents, carers and paediatricians. I am told that many paediatricians are reluctant to become expert witnesses or take on cases where child abuse is suspected, which may leave children unprotected.
Mr. Hain: This is a very important matter and I acknowledge the close and expert interest that my hon. Friend has shown in child protection and children's rights. That is why I am sure that the Attorney-General's statement and the accompanying written ministerial statement will be particularly welcome to her.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab):
I thank the Leader of the House for the generous provision of three
6 May 2004 : Column 1506
days' debate on the Pensions Bill on Report and Third Reading, but will he assure the House that, within that time, sufficient time will be given to debate all amendments relating to the 60,000 workers who have lost their pensions, including any amendment that may be tabled by Labour Members if the Government do not make their own announcement before that time?
Mr. Hain: It is partly because of the importance of the matter that sufficient time has been allowed, not just to debate the necessary technical amendments tabled by the Government but to address that issue. I assure my hon. Friend that, if an amendment tabled by Back Benchers is selected by you, Mr. Speaker, and if it is in order, there will be enough time to debate it, if, indeed, it is necessary to table such an amendment at all.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that patronage is the curse of our age and that 46 new Members have entered Parliament by appointment, not election? What is happening with House of Lords reform and will it ever take place while peers in the other place have a right of veto and can overrule the decisions that we take in the elected House?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |