---

Mr. Hain: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is not to vote Conservative. Under this Government, comprehensive schools have had more investment and provision of equipment, such as computer equipment, as any of us who visits their local schools knows. We have seen 28,600 more teachers, more than 105,000 additional school support staff, and average spending per pupil increase by £800 in real terms since Labour came to power, compared with the miserable record of the Conservatives. What are they planning to do when they get back? Their policy is to cut back on public provision and comprehensive school funding, and passport the money out to private education.

Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): Can I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend early-day motion 1806, which stands in my name, and which has cross-party support, with the exception of the Scottish National party, whose Members, unfortunately, are again not in the Chamber?

[That this House condemns the offensive language of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) in its reference to the Union Flag as the Butcher's Apron, and believes that these irresponsible comments reflect badly on our armed forces past and present; and therefore calls on the SNP leadership at Westminster to distance itself from these extremist comments.]

The Scottish national party has described the British union flag as the butcher's apron. Given that our armed forces are currently serving under that flag, will my right hon. Friend reassure this House and the armed forces and their families that they are not regarded as butchers? An apology should be forthcoming from the leadership of the Scottish National party for those outrageous statements.

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. An apology should immediately be made by the Scottish National party and its leader, who sits in this House, for that disgraceful attack on not just our armed forces but the spirit in Scotland, as in Wales, that Scots are proud to be Scots but also proud to be British. The Scottish National party has lost the argument in relation to independence and sawing off Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which is why it is indulging in such petty initiatives.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): I note from a letter from my right hon. Friend that the "Together" campaign on antisocial behaviour is being extended today to include the city of Cardiff. May we have a debate so that we can discuss how to make the campaign work in areas such as Cardiff, where the local authority is dominated by a political party that opposed all those measures in principle?

Mr. Hain: It will be interesting to see whether the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cardiff city council takes seriously its responsibilities to stamp out antisocial behaviour. Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed some of the tough measures that this Government have introduced to stop local communities being subject to the scourge of antisocial behaviour. I hope that the programme being rolled out today in Cardiff, Newport and Swansea will spread right across
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1602
 
Wales, because I want more antisocial behaviour orders applied in my constituency of Neath and elsewhere. The law is there—the Government have provided the powers to the police and local authorities, and those powers should be exercised.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the cut-and-sew contract awarded by the Ministry of Defence, which it has transferred to China, which will mean job losses in Lancashire? Under the new Warwick agreement between the Government and trade unions, I thought that that would not happen. Will he allow time to ensure that those jobs are not lost in Lancashire and that China does not produce Army uniforms, especially camouflage?

Mr. Hain: I know that the Secretary of State for Defence is aware of the deep concerns that have been expressed by my hon. Friend previously, as he does properly today, and in north-west England, and he is examining these matters. We have seen record, unparalleled investment in defence under this Government, without comparison under previous Labour or Conservative Governments, and he will know that we have a strong and committed policy in support of manufacturing industry, which will continue.

Jim Knight (South Dorset) (Lab): Can the House have a debate on the music industry? That would give us an opportunity both to pay tribute to the extraordinary work of John Peel, who sadly died this week, and to discuss how we can use the appropriate implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 to encourage live music in our pubs and clubs.

Mr. Hain: I, like my hon. Friend, am a big supporter of live music in pubs and clubs and of musicians right across the country. Indeed, John Peel was a champion of such musicians, gave many of them the opportunity for a career that they would not otherwise have had, and brought to the forefront of pop interest much previously obscure music, which then became mainstream. We pay tribute to his work and his contribution to all that.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): May I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) in expressing my belief that if we had a free vote, as we did, on the protection of animals, a fortiori, we ought to have a free vote on the protection of children? The Leader of the House gave the provisional business for the week commencing Monday 8 November. Does he anticipate that the public health White Paper will be published during that period? If that happens then or at a later date, what plans does he have to incorporate in the parliamentary timetable a full debate on public health issues, not just the hour that will follow the statement in the House?

Mr. Hain: Certainly, I will pay careful attention to my hon. Friend's point about public health, but he will be encouraged by the public health White Paper that the Secretary of State intends to publish. It will be path-breaking in terms of taking forward the whole public health agenda. In respect of his concerns, echoing
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1603
 
those of other Members, about the Children Bill, smacking and beating and so on, it is important that the argument is put in the context of a Bill that will bring unprecedented new protection rights for children right across the country. It is important that in the specific argument about how that is implemented, we do not lose sight of the fact that it is a fantastic Bill, providing extra new rights, which ought to be acknowledged.

 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1604
 

Points of Order

1.49 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of my party, may I put on record the fact that we also share the concerns that demonstrations should not be violent, and that I was sorry to hear of the incident involving the Leader of the House?

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given notice of it both to Mr. Speaker and to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Last week I tabled a question for named-day answer:

"To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his public engagements carried out in the week from 18 October."

Although I did not receive the customary personal reply in the post, I see from Hansard that it was answered on Monday as follows:

"I refer the hon. Member to the answer I provided to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 20 October 2004."—[Official Report, 26 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 1053W.]

That answer was raised by my hon. and learned Friend in business questions. He had tabled this question:

"To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his official engagements since his appointment to his present Cabinet post."

The reply was:

"Since my appointment as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster , I have had a range of official meetings including meetings with Cabinet colleagues relating to my cross-Government role in the co-ordination of Government policy, my responsibilities for the work of the Strategy Unit and the Policy Directorate; my Duchy of Lancaster role; and my membership of the Cabinet."—[Official Report, 20 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 720W.]

I know that the Chair does not have responsibility for the inadequacy of the content of answers, but I had asked for an account of public engagements for the week beginning 18 October, and was referred to an answer about official engagements given only two days into that week, on 20 October. Given the view that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—who has so far spent a grand total of four minutes at the Dispatch Box since his appointment—is doing a job which is itself cover for a job running strategy for Labour to win the election, what protection can the Opposition have to hold to account a Minister who does not even give an answer relating to the same period as that specified in the question? We know that this is the sort of treatment that we get from the Prime Minister, but the Chancellor does not have his job yet.

---