---

Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend share with many other people and me a slight suspicion that the oil companies may be operating like a cartel? The price of crude oil has risen and the price at petrol stations is a multiple of that. How can the oil companies justify their actions, as last year they enjoyed excessive profits? The only reason I can think of for increasing the price is the increased cost of transporting fuel to petrol stations. Could we have a short debate to allow the relevant Department to assess the oil companies' position and allay the suspicions that they are ripping off the British motorist?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has expressed concerns that are probably shared across the House. For all our constituents it is imperative that the global pressures to raise oil prices, which originate from various sources, including the enormous quantities of oil sucked in by China, do not impinge on motorists in a discriminatory way. That is the key thing. If excess profits are made as a result of that sudden hike, it is important that motorists do not bear the cost.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Reverting to Iraq, can the Leader of the House confirm that it will be a Cabinet Minister who responds to our debate on Monday so that, at long last, we can clear up the many confusions that have arisen in the House over the past few days, not least responses in Prime Minister's questions yesterday to questions from my right hon. and hon. Friends? Can we be sure that the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary will respond to that debate on Monday?
 
13 May 2004 : Column 474
 

Will the Leader of the House make a statement and publish guidance on the most appropriate way of making Government announcements, a subject which you, Mr. Speaker, hold dear? It is outrageous that ministerial attitudes towards statements are becoming increasingly sloppy. For example, last night there was a tiny written statement by a junior Home Office Minister on the control of firearms and gun crime—an extremely important issue, as I am sure all Members agree. At the same time however, there was an extensive media briefing, which was not made available to Members of Parliament and could not be questioned or challenged. Indeed, that media briefing, by ruling out the possibility of a ban on imitation and replica firearms, contradicted the consultation paper, which left that as an open question to which we require answers.

The Leader of the House may have seen comments in the press about those issues, but we have not been asked to comment and have not been given a chance to challenge Ministers. Can he give us an absolute undertaking that he will look at the issue and see whether there should be better guidance to his Government colleagues about the appropriate way of making statements to the House? Surely, we need a proper opportunity to challenge Ministers. Would he look at that again and make a statement? He is, after all, our only representative in Government, standing up for Members of Parliament, particularly Back Benchers, on such issues.

Mr. Hain: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman. My ministerial role as Leader of the House is to represent the whole Commons, not just the Cabinet. I discharge that duty, as he knows, very diligently. On the question of Government announcements and guidelines that may or may not be published, we all share concern that information, particularly new information indicating a change of policy, is heard by the House before anybody else. In today's 24-hour news agenda, that is often difficult, but we try our best.

As for the worrying issue of gun crime—on which we are seeking to bear down—the hon. Gentleman may inadvertently have misrepresented the position of Home Office Ministers. We have issued a consultation document, which has been made available to Members and others so that they can express their point of view. This is a highly complex matter—firearms legislation needs to be modernised, and the consultation document provides an opportunity to ensure that the regulatory framework is robust and prevents guns from getting into the wrong hands, while at the same time allowing legitimate shooters to pursue their sport without danger to public safety. That is what we are grappling with. The hon. Gentleman's views would be welcome, as would be those of other hon. Members.

On Iraq, I learned only today the topic of the motion that the Liberal Democrats are tabling on Iraq, so the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that we have not managed to allocate ministerial responsibilities, but I shall bear his point in mind.

David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): It looks as though it will be a good week for our constituents with regard to pensions. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the deep unease that continues to exist over the
 
13 May 2004 : Column 475
 
sickening abuses of detainees in Iraq? For someone who has not the slightest intention of apologising for supporting action to destroy Saddam's tyranny, it is alarming not only that the abuses continued to occur, but that we had little or no knowledge of them. Therefore, despite the statement earlier this week from the Defence Secretary and the debate on Monday, will my right hon. Friend please make sure that as much information as possible is given about how it was possible for such abuses to occur? I refer particularly to those committed by the Americans, who are the most guilty of all—but apparently, whether the photographs in the Daily Mirror were fake or not, abuses by British soldiers did occur. We want to know the truth, and we want to know what is being done to bring the culprits to justice.

Mr. Hain: That question, coming from my hon. Friend especially, who has maintained a steadfast position in support of the Government on Iraq, deserves to be listened to closely. He makes his point well and I agree with him. Some of the reports of abuses, especially by American forces, have been not just sickening, but disgraceful and unacceptable, and in defiance of the Geneva convention and other international rules of behaviour. It is right that those abuses have been condemned by Government Ministers on both sides of the Atlantic. We are working to make sure that they do not happen on the British side, and I am sure the American Government are doing likewise in respect of their troops. On BBC television last night, I saw some reports from senators, coming out of the hearings, about the new photographs that they had seen. They are horrifying and it is a total stain on the coalition. The sooner the abuses are brought under control and eradicated, the better. Then we can move forward, as my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con): The shambles that passes for the Government's asylum and immigration policy was exacerbated on 1 May when a significant number of people—asylum claimants from countries that are now members of the European Union—found themselves citizens of the EU. The Home Office wrote to those people in April and told them that, with effect from 1 May, their benefits would stop, their housing benefit would stop, they would have to give up their flats or houses, and they would either have to return home or seek work. What is not clear is how they are to do that if the Home Office immigration and nationality department still has their passports. How are they to prove who they are? Could the Leader of the House prevail upon the Home Secretary to come to the House and clarify the position?

Mr. Hain: There is a serious point here—the problem of the worldwide movement of people on a massive and unprecedented scale, from which other countries across the rest of Europe are suffering, just as we are. We have put legislation in place—often, I might say, opposed by Conservative Members—in order to make sure that we tackle the problem. As a result, asylum applications have been halved and the number of returnees has doubled. We have got a grip on the situation. The hon. Gentleman says there is a shambles of a policy. As he uses that language, I can refer to the shambles of a policy that we inherited from the Conservative Government,
 
13 May 2004 : Column 476
 
which was virtually an open door to illegal asylum seeking. We have got a grip on that, we are driving it down and, in the face of the most massive movement of people across the globe, we are putting in place the measures to stop that happening. We are ensuring that only legal migration can occur.

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): May we have a short debate to give publicity to the fact that Bradford district, including my constituency, is piloting the extended school scheme, which will give parents, particularly single parents, the ability to work, safe in the knowledge that their children are receiving high quality child care before school, after school and during the school holidays? Those are issues that deter parents from working. The scheme will reduce child poverty in the Bradford district and it will also almost certainly be opposed by the Conservative party.

Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Conservatives will oppose the scheme, not least because they could not afford it if their spending cuts plan was implemented. [Interruption.] They would have to oppose it as a result of the cuts that they plan to make immediately on coming into office—if, indeed, they ever do.

On the substance of the question, it is important that such extended school schemes are implemented because they give parents the opportunity to work—especially those on low incomes or those going into jobs on low incomes—knowing that their children are safe and secure and continuing their studies. I was heckled on the subject of cuts; it is the shadow Chancellor's expressed programme to cut non-school budgets in education and skills.

---