---

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): In replying to an earlier question, the Leader of the House referred to the need to invest in education and science. He might not be aware that the university of Cambridge
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1107
 
gets four times as much money per student as the university of Wolverhampton, which is headquartered in my constituency. Conversely, the university of Cambridge is one of the least accessible to working-class students—indeed, it got worse last year—while the university of Wolverhampton is the most accessible mainstream university in the country. Another contrast between them is that, whereas the university of Wolverhampton allows students to work, the university of Cambridge tells prospective students that they will be "sent down", to use its archaic language, if they get a job. That is hardly doing much to encourage accessibility for working-class students. Can we have an early debate on the matter?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Vote Labour in Wolverhampton!

Mr. Hain: Indeed; vote Labour in Wolverhampton and right across the country.

I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) says. Obviously, Wolverhampton is lighting a path for opportunities for students from working-class and low-income backgrounds, and that example should be followed right across the university sector. That is precisely why, as a result of the Government's new legislation, more and more opportunities will be provided for low-income students, and more obligations will be placed on universities such as Cambridge to ensure that those students can take advantage of them.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet) (Con): Further to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), I believe that my constituents will think it very strange if we do not have a debate on the question of strategy in Iraq post-30 June. Will the Leader of the House give us some indication that the Government will have a debate on the issue well before the end of next month? To have such a debate would in no way undermine the valiant duties being performed now by the British forces in Iraq.

Mr. Hain: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and, as I have said, I am open-minded about such a debate and its timing. That is not to suggest—I am sure that he is not doing so—that there have not been many opportunities to debate Iraq. Defence debates in recent times—including one only last week—have been dominated by the subject, and the Prime Minister made a statement on Iraq very recently, in which hon. Members were able to question him. If and when it is the right time to have a debate on Iraq, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government will call one.

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1173?

[That this House notes that the monitoring evidence collected by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), a network of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries, demonstrates that companies continue to market baby food products in breach of the World Health
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1108
 
Assembly International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent relevant resolutions; also notes that where there is malpractice it is systematic and institutionalised and that, globally, 1.5 million infants die every year because they are not breastfed, and that even in industrialised countries with universal access to health care, there are significant negative effects of artificial infant feeding, including increased risk of diabetes and obesity; is concerned that UK law only implements some provisions of the Code, limiting these to infant formula, not all breastmilk substitutes, and that follow-on formula, with similar packaging and the same name as the infant formula, is widely advertised, that bottles and teat marketing is totally unregulated, and that while the Code bans direct contact with the mother, UK companies have baby clubs and carelines; therefore calls on the Government to support independently monitored and enforced legislation fully implementing the Code and resolutions at UK, EU and international level and additional WHA resolutions to strengthen protection of appropriate infant feeding practices, to address emerging aggressive baby milk food marketing, to make appropriate policy changes in response to scientific developments, and to take action to ensure that EU Council Resolution 92/C172/01 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third countries by community-based manufacturers functions effectively.]

The motion was tabled in national breast-feeding awareness week, and draws attention to the violations of the international code on the marketing of breast milk substitutes by the manufacturers of baby food products, and the consequential harmful effect that that is having on infant mortality across the world, and even on public health in this country. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), has accepted that the 1995 regulations on infant formula are not fully in compliance with the code. Will my right hon. Friend make time available so that the Government can implement the recommendation of the committee on the rights of the child that the UK should adopt the international code in full?

Mr. Hain: All parents will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. As she says, the Government are well aware of the differences between United Kingdom legislation and the international code, and we are exploring, with the Food Standards Agency, ways in which our regulations could be better aligned to the code.

Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): There are two things that we learned from yesterday. One is that those on the Treasury Bench and the Prime Minister did not flinch under fire, and they should be applauded for that. The other is that the House does not have an evacuation plan. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the review that is being undertaken will take a holistic approach to incidents that occur both at this end of the Palace and at the other end, where other people are responsible for security? We have concrete barriers outside at the moment, which are unsightly and have been there for a long time. We need to do things that are
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1109
 
not so intimidatory or obvious, but which will make us secure. Other procedures for evacuation need to be put in place. It is not a matter of just sitting here and waiting.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Or running away.

Richard Younger-Ross: Or running away. We will need walk-through showering facilities, for example. I hope that that will be taken into account in the review, without going into detail.

Mr. Hain: May I express my gratitude for the hon. Gentleman's steadfast praise for the Prime Minister? "Holistic" is more of a Liberal Democrat word than a Labour word, but I take his point. It is not sufficient to look at just one aspect of security, such as the screen in front of the Strangers Gallery. Every aspect of the issue must be looked at in the round, which is precisely why the Speaker and the House of Commons Commission have ordered this widespread review by the Security Service and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and why we are determined, as a result of that review, to see big modifications in security and to learn the lessons of recent events. We are agreed on that, and we intend to take it forward—in a holistic way, by all means.

Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the genuine concern surrounding the future of British manufacturing. Can he begin to understand the frustration felt by British workers, including those employed at Fergusons shipyard in my constituency, who tender for British contracts, are denied, and see the contract awarded to foreign competitors? More worryingly, such decisions are taken by faceless bureaucrats, with little or no ministerial responsibility or accountability. Will he therefore use his good offices to ensure that the Government's procurement policy takes account of the potential job losses when British Government contracts are awarded to foreign competitors?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive point, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to listen carefully to his comments. I am sure that if my hon. Friend had had more time or had been in order to do so, he would have wanted to acknowledge the Government's very good record on job creation, having been responsible for running an economy in which since we came to power nearly 2 million more jobs have been created in the past seven years, and in which unemployment is lower in every constituency in the land, including my hon. Friend's.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): Can time be found for a series of statements from Departments on what steps they are taking to improve their woeful record on the answering of written parliamentary questions and the quality of the answers given? Statistics that I have obtained show that the worst offenders in answering written questions are the Foreign Office, which in the previous Session took 102 working days to answer one question; the Department of Health, which took 127 working days; the Department for Work and Pensions, which took 130 days; and the Department for Culture, Media and
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1110
 
Sport, which took 132 working days. Other Departments either cannot or will not answer the question on how long it has taken them. The Home Office took nearly three months to answer my question by saying that it could not give the figures that I was seeking.

Even when answers are given, they are frequently inadequate. I have been waiting since 2 March for a letter that was promised to me regarding greenbelt erosion in metropolitan areas, and on 4 May, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education told me that the figures that I had requested were "not to hand", but that he would send them to me when they were—apparently, they are still not to hand. It is simply unacceptable. Members of Parliament cannot get on with their jobs if the Government will not give us the information that we request. Can we have some statements on what will be done about it?

---