| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): My right hon. Friend was quite sympathetic in his responses to our hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) and for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), but I put it to him that there is real anger in Greater Manchester about the apparent decision to drop the Metrolink scheme. The regional newspaper, the Manchester Evening News, described it as a betrayal. Will my right hon. Friend take that message back to the Secretary of State for Transport and make sure that he understands that Greater Manchester expects him to return with proposals agreed with the passenger transport authority and the contractors, and to ensure that our conurbation has the Metrolink that it badly needs for both public transport and environmental reasons?
Mr. Hain: I understand the point that my hon. Friend properly raises. Given that he has raised it, I am sure that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will take even more careful note of it than before. However, part of the anger to which my hon. Friend referred might have arisen from a misconception that the north-west of England is somehow cross-subsidising Crossrail in London. That is simply not the case. There is a long way to go before the funding mechanism for Crossrail is put in place, not least the negotiation of the passage of a private Bill through Parliament.
Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP): No mention was made of the Royal Marines in yesterday's statement on defence, yet after I left the Chamber I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence informing me that RM Condor at Arbroath in my constituency is under review. Any threat to the base has a huge impact on the local economy. Does the Leader of the House think it appropriate that information is released in such a way? May we have a debate in Government time on the effect of base closures on local communities?
Mr. Hain: It is important that local MPs be properly notified. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence wants to do that, and that the process of consultation is continuing.
Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab):
May we have an early debate on the extraordinary decision by the Tory-Liberal coalition in Birmingham to pull the £2 billion highway private finance initiative scheme at the eleventh hour? Such a debate is needed for two reasons: first, we need to understand how any private company can be expected to commit the necessary resources and submit a bid by August for a project that might now not go ahead; secondly, I want to know whether the people of Birmingham will be liable to pay compensation to the
22 Jul 2004 : Column 495
companies for the losses that they have incurred. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on how to bring some sanity to bear on this latest act of civic vandalism?
Mr. Hain: That does sound like a bit of a shambles from the Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration. I was interested to read in an editorial in The Birmingham Post of 16 July:
"The message from the council's new Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration, whether intentional or not, was one of dithering while the roads crumble."
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): As the Leader of the House, most uncharacteristically, was over-prepared in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), may I invite him to have a second go but to leave his notes behind? Does he agree that the appointment of a European Commissioner is very important to this country, that it is vital that the right person be appointed, and that it would be appropriate to have a statement on that appointment, especially if the appointment proves to be controversial, as the newspapers lead us to believe it will be?
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman courteously invites me to respond in greater detail than before. I am sorry, but I am unable to respond to that courteous invitation.
Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): This morning, I received a telephone call from one of my constituents who works in Tesco house in Cardiff to say that this afternoon Tesco will publicly announce a further 160 job losses in its head office in Cardiff. That is in addition to the 230 jobs lost last year. The jobs are to be outsourced to Bangalore. I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises how great the disappointment is, especially after all the reassurances that Tesco gave. Many long-standing employees will lose their jobs. Will he arrange an urgent debate on the issue when we return?
Mr. Hain: I know that the management of Tesco will take careful note of my hon. Friend's comments, because there will be real concern in her constituency about the job losses. If anything can be done, I hope that her representations will help it to be done. Tesco is now the biggest private sector employer in the country and therefore very important, but I am sure that it will review the situation in Cardiff in the light of her comments.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con):
Will the Leader of the House try a lot harder in respect of Equitable Life? He will know—or perhaps he does not—that on today's Order Paper, No. 32 in the list of these peculiar written ministerial statements that we now have is an announcement that the Minister for the Cabinet Office will say something about "Extending the Jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (The Ombudsman)." Is that a tease or a hint? Will he please be a lot more specific about what the
22 Jul 2004 : Column 496
Government will do in response to the request by the ombudsman in respect of Equitable Life? It is not good enough to keep hundreds of thousands of people waiting and frustrated again and again on a matter that should be straightforward for the Government. If there is any transparency and decency in the Government, let us have an answer.
Mr. Hain: The first part of my answer is that I do not accept that to make a written ministerial statement is peculiar. On the contrary, it is perfectly proper to use such a statement as an alternative to the previous practice—with which, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman was happy—whereby the Government were required to plant questions in order to provide information to the House by answering them. Today's practice is far better: Ministers can make written ministerial statements in which they give the information that the House is entitled to have.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): When we had a drugs tsar, he produced an annual report and we debated misuse of drugs on the Floor of the House. Since then, the National Treatment Agency has been set up and things have moved on in other ways, but as chairman of the all-party drugs misuse group, I ask my right hon. Friend to reinstate the annual debate on the subject.
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly give it consideration. Coming from the chairman of the all-party group, that question is important. However, my hon. Friend knows that drugs misuse is high on the Home Secretary's agenda and that he has plenty of opportunities to question my right hon. Friend on the direction of Government policy. In addition, he can apply for a debate himself if he feels that one is needed.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): Will the Leader of the House make time available to debate the merits of introducing a Health and Safety Executive business awards scheme in conjunction with the insurance industry? Small and medium-sized companies that have a claim-free record and those that have made significant improvements to health and safety at work could be recognised. Does he agree that such a scheme operating in all regions of the UK would publicise good practice in the workplace, focus attention on the need to continue to raise health and safety standards, and bring to the attention of business the benefits of having no claims when negotiating employer and public liability insurance?
Mr. Hain: That is an interesting idea on which Ministers will reflect. We want to give every encouragement to good practice in industry, and if an awards scheme is regarded as a sensible way to achieve that, no doubt the idea will be taken forward.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab):
Yesterday, a consolidated document on parental separation was published. When will we have a chance to be consulted and have a debate on that document? The key question that some fathers whose marriages have broken up are asking is that care of the children should be arranged strictly 50:50. I have a constituent
22 Jul 2004 : Column 497
who has that arrangement, under which the child benefit and child tax credit go to the mother only, and as a consequence the Child Support Agency payments have to be made from the father to the mother, despite there being a strict arrangement that it is 50:50, where there is no exact partner with care and no exact absent parent. This matter could be thrown into the debate.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |