---

Mr. Hain: I do not know about the big new house.

I am advised that regulatory scrutiny was carried out as normal for this case and that competition policy was not reversed, as has been alleged. Remedies to competition concerns identified were obtained before the decision was made by the Secretary of State and announced in the normal way.

David Wright (Telford) (Lab): Can we have a major debate in the House on Sure Start? It has recently been announced that Telford will get £8.9 million of investment in Sure Start between 2004 and 2006, but there is deep concern that the Conservatives do not support the programme and that it would be cut if they were returned to power.

Mr. Hain: Sure Start programmes play a vital role, including in my hon. Friend's communities and across the country. Not only do we not want to them to be cut, which would be the result of the Opposition's policy: we want them to expand. Surely the most deprived people in the country, many of them young children in vulnerable families, should be given more and more support and investment.

Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to give an urgent statement to clarify the Government's policy on the proposed Crossrail project, which is likely to have a big impact on Romford, and particularly on the people living in the Crowlands and Rush Green areas, who will be blighted by a huge depot that will be erected very close to residential areas? He will not be aware of it, but yesterday evening, the central Romford community area committee held a very large meeting, which 300 people attended. They were very angry about what is going to happen, and we hope that the Government will make a clear statement on the matter at the earliest opportunity, so that the people of my constituency know exactly where they stand.

Mr. Hain: The people of the hon. Gentleman's constituency are entitled to know where they stand.
 
13 May 2004 : Column 480
 
Obviously, the fact that a public meeting on such a scale was held last night is an important development. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will want to note the hon. Gentleman's concerns very carefully, and his raising them in the House will ensure that that happens.

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): Could we have a debate as soon as possible in Government time on the Government's proposals for a new equality and human rights commission? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—a Minister whom I admire greatly—chose to announce the proposals at a press conference yesterday rather than by way of a statement to the House? Is he also aware of the concerns of groups such as the 1990 Trust, which believes that the abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality, which is inherent in the proposals, will marginalise the race issue?

Mr. Hain: I am aware of those concerns, and my hon. Friend is certainly aware of them, but he will also understand that the objective is to mainstream equality issues, whether they are about women's equality, racial equality or equality for people with disabilities, rather than separate them. That is the objective. I understand that such change is always difficult and that when old institutions are abolished and new ones are introduced, there will always be a process of churning and uncertainty. None the less, I think that he would support the objective of getting equality and human rights mainstreamed across society, which we must all share.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Now that we have winkled out of the Leader of the House the fact that the mysterious 100 amendments to the Pensions Bill are finally going to be tabled today—I suppose he thinks we are going to be cringingly grateful, but I should think we are all appalled—will he consider the impact that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) mentioned earlier? The many groups with a legitimate interest in this complex and important matter now have barely two or three days, even including the weekend, to consider their proper response to what the Government are saying, and hon. Members may also want to respond with other amendments, yet the Leader of the House is telling us that the House will be forced to consider the measure as early as next Tuesday. Will he consider postponing consideration of the Pensions Bill altogether, so that Members of Parliament and interest groups can have a proper amount of time to consider what is going on, instead of seeing it railroaded through by an obviously ashamed Government?

Mr. Hain: I miss the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric from the Front Bench, although it is enjoyable from the Back Benches. He said that the information had been "winkled out", but I was asked a question by the shadow Leader of the House and I answered it, telling him that the amendments would be tabled today. As to the claim
 
13 May 2004 : Column 481
 
that there is not enough time, three days have been allocated, which is a pretty well unprecedented amount for a Report stage.

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): They asked for two days.

Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend reminds us, the Opposition only asked for two days, but we have given them three. That does not sound like winkling out to me; it sounds like being on the front foot. I hope, by the way, that the right hon. Gentleman will support the Bill and the new pension protection fund—[Interruption.] We are asked to wait and see. Are the Opposition going to protect the pensions of workers, which were so shamefully neglected in the 1980s and 1990s? We are introducing legislation to provide that extra protection.

Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Sir Nigel Crisp report on the NHS? The NHS remains very near the top of the public's agenda, and while they often praise local NHS services, they also often have a perception that the NHS generally is not doing very well. The report produced by Sir Nigel demonstrates the opposite and suggests that the NHS is doing very well indeed. Surely, such a debate would be a great advantage.

Mr. Hain: Indeed. It is extremely important that Sir Nigel, who is the chief executive of the NHS, is not a politician, but a public servant—[Interruption.] He is telling it as it is, and he says clearly that things are improving and that the maximum waiting time for an operation is down to nine months—[Interruption.] That is half the level under the Conservatives, who are now heckling me. He says that things are improving all the time, with more nurses and doctors, and 167,000 more elective operations in hospital this year than last. [Interruption.] There have been year-on-year improvements, all because of record investment from this Government to improve our national health service, which was left in such a disgraceful state by the Conservatives who are now heckling me.

Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): In the light of today's news that a 14-year-old child was helped to have an abortion without the knowledge of her parents, will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the respective roles of parents, schools, health professionals and organisations such as the Family Planning Association in giving advice on sexual health to minors?

Mr. Hain: I was very concerned to hear about that report. Obviously, it is for the authorities to act within the framework of the law and for Ministers to maintain a watchful eye on the matter, to ensure that it is resolved to the satisfaction of everybody concerned.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend look back at the early-day motion, then—numbered 308—that was tabled on 23 June 1992? Will my right hon. Friend also look back
 
13 May 2004 : Column 482
 
at the speech that I made from the Opposition Benches on 12 March 1997, and then contrast what he has seen with the statement made yesterday that pension problems have arisen under this Government? Does he agree with me, and indeed with the shadow Leader of the House, that the Prime Minister should be here to make a statement on these matters—so that we can see the Leader of the Opposition squirm?

Mr. Hain: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did that every Wednesday at Prime Minister's questions, but my hon. Friend's point is obviously very important, and it will repay further study.

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): Can we have a debate in Government time on the chaos in the postal system? Many of our constituents are now receiving their mail late in the afternoon or even in the evening, and many are now receiving other people's mail rather than their own. We have had a number of debates about post office closures in recent months, but we now need to talk about this matter as well. The Post Office is owned by the Government; there are serious problems within it; and this House needs to address those problems. Will the Government now give us an opportunity to debate it?

---