---

Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab): I can understand why the Leader of the House did not find time last week to have a debate on the closure of the jobcentre in Deal in my constituency. However, he may not know that neither the staff affected by that closure, nor the Public and Commercial Services Union representatives who represent the people who might be made redundant, have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with management or to be consulted at all, although the consultation period was due to end yesterday. Does he agree that that action by management is completely unacceptable and smacks of arrogant disregard?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will have a chance to raise that matter during Work and Pensions questions on Monday, but the account that he gives is very surprising, and it is not acceptable for management to behave in that way.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): Will the Leader of the House make a statement on Monday, before we return to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, on the comparison between that measure and the laws that were in place in South Africa before the apartheid regime fell? He will know that one of his hon. Friends, who has the most dreadful personal reasons to know about this in detail, said that the measures bore an extraordinary and chilling resemblance to the pass laws in South Africa. Since the right hon. Gentleman has personal knowledge of BOSS and its methods, perhaps he could explain whether the proposed house arrest is similar to what Verwoerd and his cohorts had in South Africa.

Mr. Hain: I have reason to know quite a lot about what went on in South Africa. The rule of law did not apply in South Africa, where it would not have been
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 487
 
possible for Law Lords to overturn a provision in an Act in the way that they did here. We were dealing with an apartheid police state in which people disappeared, never to be seen again. People were killed, harassed, intimidated and wounded. Many suffered appallingly. To try to compare the apartheid police state, which imprisoned Nelson Mandela for 10,000 days of his life, with conditions in Britain today, when we face a serious security threat from al-Qaeda and suicide bomber terrorists, who if they got the chance would blow everyone up, including themselves, is monstrous.

Mr. Robathan: What about the ANC?

Mr. Hain: The activities of the African National Congress bore no resemblance to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks, and it is unacceptable for the hon. Gentleman to suggest anything to the contrary. It shows how baseless his allegation is.

Mr. Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will know that for more than a decade, the major regional airports in this country have been in favour of an open skies policy for foreign airlines because they believe, with some justice, that that would improve local economies and create jobs. The Civil Aviation Authority has recently examined the freedom rights for foreign airlines. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an immediate debate on the matter so that we can have a clear—preferably positive—statement on it from the Secretary of State for Transport?

Mr. Hain: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate, but he has the chance to apply for one, and the Secretary of State for Transport will answer questions on Tuesday. He will want to note my hon. Friend's comments and important points.

David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced a range of sanctions on Tuesday in response to the widespread criminality for which the Sinn Fein-IRA republican movement is responsible throughout Ireland, he said that the Government would find time for the House to debate the allowances that are granted at Westminster to Sinn Fein Members of Parliament. When will that debate take place? Will the Leader of the House assure us that we will have the opportunity to vote not only on financial allowances, which mean nothing to a multibillionaire organisation such as Sinn Fein, but on access, offices, security passes and employment of staff in the Palace of Westminster? Will he assure us that the House will vote on all those matters, not only on small financial allowances?

Mr. Hain: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity to decide the matter next month, although I cannot confirm the exact date. The motion that I intend to table will be restricted to allowances, in line with the Secretary of State's statement. However, it will be amendable and the hon. Gentleman will have the chance to table amendments. If they are selected, he can make any points he wishes.

David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab): Can we have a debate on the Government's priorities for
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 488
 
their presidency of the G8 and the EU? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as well as debt and aid, on which the Government have an outstanding record, we will also deal with the international global rules, which work against the best interests of the people of Africa, and especially the much needed reform of the common agricultural policy, for which he pushed when he was Minister for Europe? Will he lend his support to my constituents who are campaigning hard to have Inverclyde recognised as a fair trade area?

Mr. Hain: I will be pleased to back my hon. Friend's constituents' request and his campaign on their behalf. As he says, the Government lead the world on pressing for trade justice, including the ability of poor countries in Africa to get into existing protected markets, such as the EU—we want the CAP to be abolished—and the United States. It is abhorrent that rich markets in the world block themselves against trade from poor countries. In addition, we are increasing overseas aid and development assistance and working to lift the burden of debt from the poorest countries. I am delighted that my hon. Friend's constituents are taking up that cause.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): It is essential that the public are assured that civil servants who offer advice to Ministers can do so in an honest and open climate. In view of the statement on the record in the recently published Yarl's Wood inquiry by a senior Home Office civil servant that disagreements over policy, even if it was patent nonsense, ran the risk of civil servants being branded as troublemakers and "not one of us", thus making reasoned debate forbidden, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Office responds to the allegations as a matter of urgency? Must we assume that such an oppressive climate for the giving of opinion by civil servants continues to exist?

Mr. Hain: Obviously, the Home Secretary will want to pay close attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of his constituent. I make a general point, which is not related to his constituent, that the phrase "not one of us" came from Mrs. Thatcher and the practice that she instituted of effectively promoting a coterie of civil servants who tended to support her policies. That is where the problem lay, not in anything that this Government are doing.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): The Leader of the House knows that consumer credit organisations—banks and credit card companies—use many aggressive marketing techniques to persuade people to take out loans that they often do not understand, and in many cases simply cannot afford. The Consumer Credit Bill will do a great deal to rectify that, but does my right hon. Friend believe that we will manage not only to get through Third Reading next week but to get the Lords to complete their consideration, so that the Bill will be on the statute book in time for the general election?

Mr. Hain: I very much hope that that is the case and that, in the event of an earlier rather than a later general election, the Opposition will co-operate with the Government on that Bill and others that are much
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 489
 
needed by our constituents to get rid of loan sharks and protect poor and vulnerable individuals and families. I hope that the House of Lords and the Opposition would give the Consumer Credit Bill a fair wind if it came to an early election, and the negotiations that always follow in those circumstances.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Could we have a debate soon on the early performances of the National Offender Management Service, which have been deeply disappointing to many people? It seems to lack a clear strategy or sense of direction. It appears to have an insatiable desire to flog off public assets, privatise core activities and, despite Gershon, expand civil service bureaucracy at the expense of front-line staff. Could the Minister with responsibility for prisons lead a debate on that organisation?

Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a measure on that matter before the House, and those issues could be tackled in debates on it.

---