| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I regret that the papers that the Modernisation Committee was due to discuss yesterday were made available to The Daily Telegraph on the previous day by, I have been informed, at least one Conservative member of the Select Committee. "Erskine May" makes it clear:
"Once received by the Committee as evidence, papers prepared for a Committee become its property and may not be published without the express authority of the Committee."
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): You will know, Mr. Speaker, that some important new clauses are up for discussion on Monday, including one that I tabled on transplants. I hope that you will be inclined to select it for debate. Is the Leader of the House sure that we shall have enough time for the important debate, given that he has tabled other business for Monday?
Mr. Hain: Yes, I am confident that there will be enough time.
Due to an inadvertent slip up, I did not announce the business for Westminster Hall. I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for July will be—
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1475
Thursday 1 July—A debate on the report from the Health Committee on abuse of the elderly.
Thursday 8 July—A debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee on asylum applications.
Thursday 15 July—A debate on the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Thursday 22 July—A debate on the report from the Work and Pensions Committee on child poverty in the UK.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): The Leader of the House will have noted the generosity of the Chair in allowing time for discussion on the national health service improvement plan. Given the interest in the subject in the country and in all parties, will he consider allowing time for a full parliamentary debate on it, especially on some of the representations that the Secretary of Health will receive from the Conservative party? Hon. Members could then examine in detail the consequences for the NHS of providing a £1 billion-plus subsidy for those who are already sufficiently wealthy to have private medical care.
Mr. Hain: I should love to find an opportunity, in a compressed business timetable, for such a debate. It will be interesting to note whether the Opposition use any of their time for it. I believe that they will become increasingly shy about their intention to rob the NHS of £1 billion. That means £1 billion-worth of doctors, nurses, consultants, beds and hospitals in the NHS. The money will be used to allow those who can already afford to go private to have a subsidy and take it to a private hospital. That policy will mean the cuts, privatisation and charges in the NHS for which the Conservatives have become renowned.
Mr. Forth: May I tempt the Leader of the House to comment a little more on the timing of the EU constitution measure? He told us that the process known as toilettage will last at least until October, that the Bill may be in the Queen's Speech and will not receive Royal Assent until well into 2005. Does that imply that the referendum will not take place until the following year? That means that we cannot flush the EU constitution down the toilette until 2006.
Mr. Hain: I have explained the situation fully to the House on a number of occasions, but perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he has said about the European constitutional treaty. He said:
"With hindsight the European Union is not acceptable since we joined . . . The whole thing was probably a mistake".
"The process of renegotiation is a precursor to withdrawal".
There we have it. That is the real policy of the Conservative party. It is supported by the right hon. Gentleman and it is getting lots of nods on the Conservative Back Benches and in their constituencies—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed. That is ultimately what the battle will be about. A policy on the European constitutional treaty advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, with individual Members such as the
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1476
right hon. Gentleman behind it, would, in the end, lead us into a completely untenable position in the European Union and put us on a slow train—
Mr. Hain: Well, if the right hon. Gentleman became Leader of the Opposition, it would be a fast train out of the European Union.
Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab): Given that the commitment to allow people in the regions their say over whether to establish regional assemblies was in the Government's manifesto both in 1997 and in 2001, does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than those referendums being rushed through, they have actually taken a more leisurely route than many of us would have liked? Will he assure us that there will be no slippage, either in the draft powers Bill that is supposed to be published soon, or in the holding of the referendums, whatever voting system is used?
Mr. Hain: I applaud my right hon. Friend's forthright support for a north-east regional assembly, and her eloquent advocacy on its behalf. I want to reassure her that Parliament needs to approve the necessary orders to trigger the assembly elections, so as to allow adequate campaigning periods and the timely distribution of public information in line with the autumn timetable. Three such orders have been laid today, which are subject to an affirmative resolution. The Government will shortly be laying a further order, which will set the date of the referendums, and the local government options to be put to the voters in two-tier local government areas. I think that my right hon. Friend can be reassured about that.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): In April 2003, a constituent of mine in Carrickfergus received unsolicited mail regarding Government policy on Iraq from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which apparently acknowledged a letter that he was purported to have sent. My constituent wrote to the sender, S. M. McHugh of the middle east department, on 22 April, and then to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 2 September 2003, asking for the alleged letter to be removed from the record and not attributed to him. He was concerned because the postscript to the letter that he had received stated:
"The Foreign and Commonwealth Office holds and uses data . . . Such personal data may be disclosed to other UK Government Departments and public authorities."
Neither of his letters was acknowledged. I have been in touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at least half a dozen times, and I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he could make time for the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary or his nominee to come to the House and tell us why his Department has failed for 14 months to respond to my constituent's correspondence and to a Member of the House.
Mr. Hain:
Obviously, I am not sighted of any of those details. I make no complaint about that; the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter quite properly, and I
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1477
am sure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and particularly the Foreign Secretary's office, will want to investigate the points that he has raised.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): May I remind my right hon. Friend that, in October last year, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on the Olympic truce, with the support of the United Kingdom? Since 1992, when the truce was revived, it has had some success—for example, during the winter Olympics in Lillehammer, when a ceasefire was negotiated in Sarajevo to allow the inoculation of all the children from both sides in that terrible conflict. With the Olympic torch passing through the United Kingdom this weekend, does my right hon. Friend agree that this would be an apposite time for us to consider, in a debate in the House of Commons, what we can do to support the Olympic truce?
Mr. Hain: I very much endorse the sentiments of my hon. Friend and the way in which he has made his point. He has the opportunity to apply for a private Member's debate in the normal way.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), was not the real reason why the Leader of the House cannot give us a date for the comprehensive spending review statement published in the papers yesterday, namely that the Chancellor remains in serious disagreement with his colleagues and the statement has been postponed? Will the Leader of the House promise that, whenever we have the statement, we shall have a full day's debate in Government time before we rise, so that the House can examine whether the Chancellor's sums actually add up?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |