| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester) (Lab): Given the current food scare concerning the Sudan 1 dye, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read early-day motion 741?
[That this House notes that the original Lea and Perrins Worcestershire sauce is not implicated by the current Sudan 1 dye food scare; urges honourable Members to continue to use the original Lea and Perrins sauce, which is only linked by name to the product involved in the food scare; and calls upon the Food Standards Agency clearly to state that Lea and Perrins (based in Worcester since 1837) use only the highest quality and certified safe ingredients in its sauce.]
It distinguishes between the original Lea and Perrins Worcestershire sauce, which is the product that consumers are most likely to see on the shelves in the shops, and the other brand, which is subject to the food scare. Given the food scare, will my right hon. Friend consider a future debate on food labelling?
Mr. Hain: Lea and Perrins Worcestershire sauce is wonderful, and it is not contaminated by that dye. I support my hon. Friend in encouraging everybody to buy Lea and Perrins Worcestershire sauce, which is made in his constituency, in the knowledge that it is perfectly safe and incredibly wholesome.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con):
May we have a debate on the decision by the Senior Salaries Review Body that even the Chief of the Defence Staff should be paid according to productivity and results? That would enable us to consider whether that principle should be applied to Ministers, particularly to the
24 Feb 2005 : Column 484
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who spends most of his time on duties that are, shall we say, not unconnected with the election campaign.
Mr. Hain: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his question in again.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on railway infrastructure projects such as railway subways, which affect thousands of pedestrians in my constituency, where a £400,000 scheme is coming to a halt because of a bitter dispute between the county council and Network Rail? Will he join me in welcoming moves this morning by Network Rail to write off its legal costs, and in encouraging all sides in such battles to work together—in this case with me, at a meeting that I will host on 10 March?
Mr. Hain: I very much hope that the county council and Network Rail will work closely with my hon. Friend and listen to his representation of his constituents' interests. They should get their act together and follow his advice.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): The Department of Health announced today that there have been 5,016 cases of HIV. Given the habitual late reporting of that condition, the figure could easily be more than 7,000. In view of the new strain that has developed in New York, which is completely resistant to treatment, never mind cure, may we have an urgent debate to consider the Government's policy towards HIV and the possibility of an effective advertising campaign to warn people of the dangers of contracting it?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important and serious issue. The Secretary of State for Health will want to take careful note of his remarks, and I will ensure that he is aware of them.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok) (Lab/Co-op): Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the disgraceful Government announcement that they intend to abuse 8 May—VE day—by using it to launch their campaign on the European constitution? Does he accept that using the second world war in that way is an example of looking backwards, not forwards—and may I suggest to him that if Ministers are thinking of dressing up in uniform at such an event, they should remember what happened to Prince Harry?
Mr. Hain: Despite the fact that we take a completely different view of the future of Europe—my hon. Friend wants to get on a train out of Europe and we want to be right at the heart of Europe—
Mr. Davidson: Not true. That is a lie.
Mr. Hain:
Let me say this to my hon. Friend: of course there has been no attempt by the Government or by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to, as it were, abuse VE day. The point that my right hon. Friend was making, and is entitled to make, was that as a result of the European Union's existence and our membership
24 Feb 2005 : Column 485
of it, it is now inconceivable that a continent in which more wars were fought over the centuries than in any other part of the world could see such conflicts between the nations that are its constituent members ever happening again. That is a fantastic tribute to Europe's success, and the constitutional treaty will help to continue that success by creating a much safer and more secure Europe, and therefore a much safer and more secure world.
Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP): The Leader of the House will be aware that this week Postcomm announced that the postal service will be opened up to full competition almost 18 months ahead of schedule, and that the Post Office's response to that was to call for more cost-reflective pricing to be available to it. That has caused a great deal of worry, especially in rural areas, about the future of our postal services. Can we have an urgent debate on the matter?
Mr. Hain: Guarantees have been put in place to ensure that rural services are protected, and that will be uppermost in the minds of the Government and the postal regulator in taking the agenda forward. The Royal Mail is the jewel in the crown of the postal service, and that will continue to be the case under this increasing competition.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): May we have a debate on early-day motion 750?
[That this House hails the success of the ban of hunting with dogs; welcomes the demonstration by 184 hunts that the ban does not destroy jobs or traditional pageantry nor result in the destruction of horses or hounds; notes that the only loss is the gratuitous cruelty of the protracted chase of a small mammal bred for that purpose; congratulates the vigilance of the police in arresting a group of alleged hare coursers; and urges farmers and landowners to disregard the request by Master of Foxhounds Association to counter the current shortage of foxes by breeding more animals for hunting.]
Such a debate would enable us to congratulate and thank the 184 hunts that last weekend demonstrated the great success of the ban on hunting by proving that there need be no loss of jobs or traditional pageantry, nor any hounds or horses destroyed, and that all that is being lost is the cruelty of a protracted chase. Can we look forward to the electors deciding that that cruelty will never return?
Mr. Hain: I completely endorse my hon. Friend's point. I think that the electorate will want to maintain a ban on cruelty to animals and will not want to vote Conservative for the Hunting Act to be overturned and cruelty to animals to become widespread again.
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con):
The Leader of the House said that that question of the Attorney-General's advice regarding the war was old hat. He may recall that on 17 March 2003—the date of the war—I received a written answer from the Solicitor-General pursuant to a question regarding the legal basis of the war that I, as shadow Attorney-General, had asked the Prime Minister on 11 March. I therefore
24 Feb 2005 : Column 486
read with considerable concern the report in today's edition of The Guardian suggesting that the Attorney-General, in evidence to the Butler inquiry relating to a meeting that took place in Downing street on 13 March, stated:
in a parliamentary answer—"they" apparently being the people whom he met, Baroness Morgan and the present Lord Chancellor. In those circumstances, and in view of the written answer that I received from the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, may we have a debate and/or a statement on this matter to clear up how that advice came to be put together, by whom and when—and should not the full advice be made available to the people of this country?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not practice, nor is it sensible, for advice that the Attorney-General gives to other Ministers to be made public. However, for his benefit and for the benefit of the House, I repeat what the Attorney-General has just said in a press statement:
"In my Parliamentary answer on the 17 March 2003, I explained my genuinely held independent view, that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions. It was certainly not a view that I expressed as a result of being leant on in any way, nor as I have already made clear, was it written by or at Number 10."
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |