Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief questions, because I have to consider the business before the House today.

Sir George Young: Further to the helpful reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), can he confirm that the debate on Sessional Orders will take place in what remains of this Session? Can he confirm that he will table resolutions related to that debate to enable the House to express its view on the continuing disturbances in Parliament square?

Mr. Hain: The debate will be next month, so it will certainly be before Prorogation. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. I will certainly look closely at the terms of the motions that we are drafting and bear in mind the point that he makes.

Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently announced a major consultation on the Crossrail project, which will end on 27 October. He should also be aware of the strong view of the business community in the Thames valley that the western terminus for Crossrail should be Reading, not Maidenhead as is currently proposed. Will he ensure that the House is given ample opportunity to debate that important transport project once the consultation period is over?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is a great champion of Reading, including its football club, and he makes an
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 433
 
important point about the western terminus being in Reading, not Maidenhead. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will note carefully my hon. Friend's powerful advocacy. The consultation period on that matter is open until 27 October, so he and his constituents will have an opportunity to make their case.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Is the Leader of the House aware that we have unfinished business from the Energy Act 2004, namely the final decision on connection charges to the grid from the National Grid Company and Ofgem? Is he aware that some of the proposals are unfair, discriminatory and sky-high for Scotland, and would sabotage not only the Government's alternative energy targets but Scotland's future as the renewable powerhouse of Europe? Can we have a debate as soon as the final proposals are published, so that we can illustrate to the Government the folly of allowing their energy policy to be dictated solely by Ofgem?

Mr. Hain: Ofgem has an important independent regulatory role to perform and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to question that—at least, in general. The Government do not allow anyone to dictate their energy policy, which is the most coherent of any Government for a generation and will allow us to make secure progress. The hon. Gentleman talks about sky-high bills for Scotland. The only sky policies coming out of Scotland are the pie-in-the-sky policies from the Scottish National party. The idea that the Government would in any way sell Scotland short is ridiculous. Scotland has a great deal under this Government and the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that.

Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): Would not the best way to add to the magnificent work the Government have done on aid to developing countries be for them to alter the terms of international trade? One of the greatest problems for the third world is that subsidised imports from Japan, the United States and Europe undercut its own production, while tariffs mean that it cannot export products to this country. May we have an urgent debate on the malign effects of the common agricultural policy on the developing world?

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Excellent man.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is indeed an excellent man. I can confirm that. He is a good Welsh colleague.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point, as do the Government. The Government are leading the international drive to achieve trade justice and to stop those protectionist barriers ringing Europe, the United States and other rich countries, blocking opportunities for poor countries in Africa and elsewhere to lift themselves out of poverty. We are also leading the world on the lifting of debt and on the provision of much more overseas aid and development. Indeed, we have been leading Europe in pressing for reform of the CAP and have already achieved much. We would like to see the CAP completely abolished and will continue to press for that objective until we reach it.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Bearing in mind that no institution, including
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 434
 
Parliament, can function effectively without a degree of trust and confidentiality, will the Leader of the House join me in deploring what appears to be an extensive leak from the Joint Committee on Security yesterday? Will he further agree that we should consider disciplining Members who leak documents, whether they sit on the Government or the Opposition side? Any Member who leaks a document or a meeting of that sort should automatically be suspended from the service of the House for at least a month.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced and excellent parliamentarian and I shall bear in mind the points he made, as we all will. I read that report with great interest; it contained a lot that was news to me—I do not know whether it was accurate. The hon. Gentleman and I are members of the House of Commons Commission, which will shortly discuss those matters, but, in general terms, I take his point: we cannot operate, especially in the sensitive area of House security, without some trust and confidence among ourselves.

Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing consensus among Labour MPs, and perhaps on the other side of the Chamber, too, that the proposal to elect the House of Lords on a secondary mandate—the Billy Bragg proposal, as it has become known—would be a compromise acceptable to many of the different points of view on House of Lords reform. Given that point, is he prepared to make arrangements for an early debate, with, I hope, an indicative vote on the issue, to gauge the degree of support for that proposal among Members?

Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's desire for such a debate. There is a bit of unfinished business that, as a Government, we are determined to finish after the next general election—with the permission of the electorate. Personally, I am very taken with the idea of a secondary mandate—of an election of Members of the House of Lords at the same time as a general election, so that there is no independent route of countervailing power—which keeps this House supreme while democratising the House of Lords and dealing with its powers and procedures. The latter are, frankly, anarchic.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): May we have an urgent debate in Government time on cancer services and the devastating effect of the postcode lottery on patients' chances of receiving them? In January 2002, my constituent, Margaret Griffin, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma and told that her condition was terminal. She now has only weeks or months to live. Given that the new drug, Velcade, could extend her life by up to 18 months, is not it both tragic and unacceptable that because her local health trust will not pay for the drug for her, even though it is available and has been provided in the Royal Marsden, the Royal Free and, I understand, in hospitals in Basildon and Bedford, she faces the grim prospect of an early death? What is to be done?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has properly raised that deeply troubling situation for Margaret Griffin and I am sure that we are all very sympathetic to him and to her.
 
14 Oct 2004 : Column 435
 

Obviously, I cannot comment on the detail, but the Secretary of State for Health will have noted his point. I can, however, point out that 99 per cent. of patients with suspected cancer are seen by a specialist within two weeks of being referred by their GP, which is up from 63 per cent. in 1997, despite a 30 per cent. increase in referrals over that period. As a Government, I think we have a good record of achievement, although there is much more to do and, in this case, clearly a lot more to do.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read early-day motion 1703 concerning Adam Evans and NHS dentistry?

[That this House expresses its regret and disappointment at the decision of Adam Evans to abandon NHS dentistry from January 2005 and only offer private treatment from his Diamond Smiles practice in Barnoldswick; understands the shock and dismay felt by many people in the town at the loss to the private sector of a dentist whose NHS credentials were paraded with such fanfare in 2001 when his practice opened; recalls that Mr Evans sought the help and assistance of the honourable Member for Pendle in securing a grant of £30,500 from the NHS to establish the practice, telling the honourable Member on 20th February 2001 that he felt 'there is a severe need in the Barnoldswick area for NHS dental provision'; further notes Mr Evans' statement of 25th January 2001 to the Consultant in Dental Public Health at the East Lancashire Health Authority that the grant 'will enable me to create a modern NHS practice available to all those people in the East Lancashire area who are seeking to register for NHS dental care'; believes Mr Evans has let down his patients and public alike after proclaiming so loudly his commitment to the NHS; further believes that he has cynically used NHS funds to help him set up shop in the town; calls on him to return the £30,500 to the Primary Care Trust in January 2005 when he ceases to take NHS patients; and urges the primary care trust to take steps to establish a new NHS dental surgery in Barnoldswick to allow those patients at Diamond Smiles who wish to stay with the NHS to transfer across to the new practice leaving Mr Evans with those who are content to go private.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that NHS dentists are not on the breadline and can easily earn £65,000 a year, and does he share my concern that our efforts to rebuild NHS dentistry are being undermined by people such as Adam Evans who accept grants from the national health service to set up an NHS practice and then go private? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and tell us what the Government intend to do to end that sort of abuse?


Next Section IndexHome Page