| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
As the right hon. Member knows, a major review of policing is being undertaken. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering the best way of making police forces more effective and making the input and experience of the police more effective in formulating Government policy. It is also right that we ensure that the best practice of the best police authorities is extended to others.
The right hon. Member mentioned community hospitals, but she neglected to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday announced £750 million as an investment for those community hospitals. The right hon. Member also voiced her concerns about falling hospital numbers, but my right hon. Friend would want me to remind the right hon. Member that, in her strategic health authority, there has been a 22 per cent. increase in the number of nurses—up by more than 2,700—and there are 1,418 more doctors, a 40 per cent. increase. I am sorry that she is not absorbing those facts.
As for the Opposition days that the right hon. Member wanted to defend, hon. Members believed that there were more serious issues than back gardens and one or two of the other things that have been chosen for Opposition days. Indeed, I await with interest the many suggestions that will come in the next few minutes from hon. Members for important debates that should be held, and I hope that I will be able to suggest an adequate slot for them.
Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware of the serious concerns in my constituency about the fate of the George Eliot hospital? [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] No, it is not the Government; they have poured a great deal of money into the health service in my area and we are grateful to them for that. However, the acute services review is suggesting that things should happen at that hospital that will be bad not only for my community, but the communities around us. All the people who have made those suggestions are unelected quango people. May we have a debate to talk about not only how the acute services review affects Nuneaton and other areas, but how those non-elected people can bear down on our constituents?
Nigel Griffiths: I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and, as he rightly said, it is for the primary care trust to take account of local views and strategic needs locally and to take appropriate actions. I hope that the PCT listens to the sort of concerns that he and others are enumerating and that it takes whatever action is appropriate to ensure that the 3,000 more front-line staff available to the strategic health authority are best deployed to ensure that waiting lists are cut further and that the most appropriate treatment is given in the most efficient manner to his constituents.
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): Many of my constituents will be surprised by hon. Gentleman’s disparaging remarks about back garden land, not least because many of them find it hard to understand how the Government have designated back gardens as brownfield sites, thus making them ripe for development.
The statement contained no reference to the Welfare Reform Bill. Is it still the Government’s intention it should have a Second Reading before the summer recess? Given that the Government intend to leave most of its detail to regulations, will he ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to ensure that, if it receives a Second Reading, the regulations are published in draft form before the Bill is debated in Committee?
May I draw the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House to early-day motion 393, entitled “Protecting Runaway Children”, which has been signed by 394 hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House warmly welcomes the Children’s Society’s Safe and Sound campaign to make England safe for the 100,000 children who run away from home or care each year; is alarmed at the Society’s findings that almost half of all children who have run away for over a week are physically or sexually hurt; calls on all local authorities to put into place the safeguards recommended by the Department of Health to protect young runaways; and further calls on the Government to undertake an early evaluation of the six pilot schemes for flexible community-based accommodation for young runaways across England which have now completed their first year, in order that the lessons can be incorporated in the swift establishment of a national network of safe places for children and young people.]
May we have some time to debate the issues that that early-day motion covers, to explore what more needs to be done to safeguard the welfare of the 100,000 children who run away each year—in particular, by securing for them long-term funding for a national network of safe shelters for children and young people?
Given the concern about the lack of give and take in our extradition arrangements with the United States, can time be made for a debate on Second Reading of the Extradition (United States) Bill, which receives its First Reading today and is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), so that extradition proceedings require the presentation of prima facie evidence to a judge before a person can be extradited to the US?
Finally, given the overwhelming decision of the House yesterday to agree to the dates of our summer recess, can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm what arrangements are in place to ensure a rapid recall of the House if events require that to happen?
Nigel Griffiths: The Welfare Reform Bill will be adequately debated and considered. I appreciate the concerns and the expertise that the hon. Member brings to the issue. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who take a particular interest in welfare reform. It is important that we get the measures right and that we give opportunities to people who feel that they are not only jobless, but excluded from the job market, to enter that market in an appropriate way.
Protecting runaway children is vital. I am sorry that I cannot promise a debate on that matter here before the recess, but there may be other avenues for that to be debated and for Ministers to respond.
On extradition, the Prime Minister has made it clear that, as he said yesterday, he wants his officials to investigate the support that is available to the people in the specific case that has been mentioned. However, there are no plans at present to amend our extradition laws and I do not see such changes planned in the foreseeable future.
The hon. Member also raised the important issue of the recall of Parliament. There are precedents for recalling Parliament, as he will know. Parliament has been recalled several times. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, of course, liaise with his opposite numbers and Mr. Speaker should such a demand or eventuality occur, and Parliament would be recalled in the normal way.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): As we recall again this week the 52 people who were murdered and the many who were seriously injured on 7 July, will my hon. Friend carefully consider a statement to explain why there is so much delay in compensation being given—the final sums—to those who were most seriously injured? I am talking about those who lost both legs, or arms, or, in the case of one person, both legs and an eye. Is it not totally unacceptable that there should be so much delay, bearing in mind the anguish of the people involved? The last thing that they should be concerned about is having to fill in endless forms to get the compensation that is their right. That has nothing to do with the compensation measure that is to be debated the week after next. I seriously urge Ministers to give this matter top priority.
Nigel
Griffiths: I know that everyone will be grateful to my
hon. Friend and other hon. Members for highlighting this case. I know
that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon.
Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) responded,
I hope sympathetically, to my hon. Friend when he raised the matter in
an Adjournment debate on 3 July. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary
also undertook to write to him setting out how the compensation
payments could be made more speedily and reminded the House that, at
that stage, 370 awards, totalling£2.3 million had been
made, and in 217 cases a final award had been accepted. I appreciate
the anguish that is caused by people having to wait for a final
settlement and so does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is
addressing the issue seriously.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): The Leader of the House has been charged by the Prime Minister with two sensitive and important tasks: dealing with the roadblocks on House of Lords reform and on party funding. Safe in the knowledge that his boss is not here, will the Deputy Leader of the House give me an assurance that, before the House rises, the Leader of the House will make a statement on the progress that he has made with both tasks?
Nigel Griffiths: I can tell the right hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will be here next week to answer that. There are no plans at present to give such a statement, because talks with the Opposition and other parties have not reached any conclusion and it might be premature to make a statement on party funding at this stage. There will, of course, be ample time to debate and deliberate on this issue when the report fromSir Hayden Phillips is published.
On the House of Lords, I am pleased to inform the House that my right hon. Friend is making progress in the range of options that are available to the House and hopes at some stage in the not-too-distant future to be able to put proposals before the House. I hope that, unlike the last time such proposals went before the House, we come to a majority view on the future composition of that institution.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport today giving an extra £244 million to the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive to enable it to start the construction of the extensions of the Metrolink within the next two years? Will he make time for a debate on other transport issues in Greater Manchester?
Nigel Griffiths: I do welcome that and I know that it will be widely welcomed in Manchester. Although I cannot give an undertaking for a debate, I know that my hon. Friend will want to take the opportunity at Transport questions next Tuesday to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in person and to press him on the timetable and other issues that concern her.
Mr.
Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
May we have a statement from the Prime Minister to
explain his interview in The Times today calling for the
formation of a Great Britain football team? Is it the Prime
Minister’s wish to have such a team just for the Olympics or
does he wish, like previous Labour Ministers, to abolish the Scottish
football team altogether? With so much to do
and so little time in which to do it, why is the Prime Minister
attempting to bully the Scottish Football Association and the Welsh
authorities into doing something that they believe would jeopardise
their position in international
football?
Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member leads me into the Scottish minefield. He will forgive me if I tread delicately through it—suffice to say that I did enjoy going, at my own expense, to see Scotland play Italy earlier this year, when they acquitted themselves very well. I have no hesitation in saying that I deeply regret England’s loss in the World cup. As for whether there should be a United Kingdom football team, or, I suppose, a British Lions team—a British Lions team does not in any way threaten the individual states having teams playing rugby—that is a matter for FIFA and for the Scottish federations, too.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): May we have an emergency debate on the political crisis that is gripping Leicester city council following the decision of the leader of the Conservative group to regard himself as a Liberal Democrat? He told the Leicester Mercury last night:
“I am to be considered a member of the Liberal Democrat group”
for the purposes of voting. He is also considering himself to be a member of the Conservative group for the purposes of leading that group. At the same time, several Liberal Democrats have now been expelled from the Liberal Democrat group and have formed their own “Focus” group. May we please have an urgent debate on this important matter so that those issues can be cleared up once and for all?
Nigel Griffiths: I would like to have an urgent debate, but, more importantly, I would like to have an urgent vote. I understand that the electors will be able to vote next year. Doubtless they will look at the chaos in the Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups on that council and choose to vote Labour.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): Despite the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), it is essential that we have a debate on the future of community hospitals. I have two in my constituency, in Swaffham and Thetford, and I am extremely concerned about their ability to cope with local needs as the acute hospitals in King’s Lynn, Norwich and the eastern region face cutbacks. The Secretary of State for Health has promised that community hospitals will be safeguarded, but there is little evidence that that promise will be fulfilled.
Nigel Griffiths: I regret that I do not believe that there will be Government time for a debate, but I urge the hon. Member to make representations to Opposition Front-Bench Members to see whether one of the subjects that they have chosen for debate—perhaps home information packs—might be delayed in order to debate what he rightly considers an important issue.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Four people were killed and 102 were injured in the Hatfield rail disaster. Subsequently, Railtrack was fined the derisory sum of £3.5 million and Balfour Beatty the token amount of £10 million. Is the Deputy Leader of the House as shocked and astonished as I am that the Appeal Court yesterday reduced Balfour Beatty’s fine by 25 per cent. on the basis that it pleaded guilty at the court hearing? Does that not show that a privatised rail system elevates profit above the safety of passengers and staff? Will he arrange a debate on the whole debacle, which might also allow us to consider the possibilities of returning the rail system to public ownership and introducing a law whereby company directors could be jailed for encouraging their more junior managers to abandon safety in the pursuit of profit?
Nigel Griffiths: Without commenting on the individual case, may I say that there is concern that there are not appropriate sanctions against the tiny minority of directors who are highly irresponsible? The Government have been considering appropriate legislation, or the appropriate strengthening of existing legislation, to take account of the concerns that my hon. Friend voices.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): This morning, I have been struck once again, as no doubt you have, Mr. Speaker, by Members’ eloquence. However, communicating is not so straightforward for many people with disabilities such as cerebral palsy. Those afflicted thought that they were finally getting the help that they needed when the Department for Education and Skills launched the communications aid project in 2002 to provide technology and support to more than 4,000 children. However, only this year, the scheme was suddenly dropped, cruelly leaving 500 children on the waiting list. The House deserves a statement that makes clear what steps the Government plan to take to ensure that local health and social care agencies are meeting vulnerable children’s communication needs. We must listen and speak for those who cannot.
Nigel Griffiths: I take the hon. Member’s comments very seriously. Although I cannot promise a statement, I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Health responds directly to him on that issue. I will ask her to place a copy of the correspondence in the Library.
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend set time aside to discuss the situation in North Korea because the incidents that have occurred this week have caused hon. Members on both sides of the House great concern?
Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I am sure that his concerns are widespread throughout the House. The United Nations Security Council met yesterday. The UK supports urgent action and the adoption of a tough resolution that urges the Government of North Korea to refrain from further launches and return to the six-party talks immediately. I hope that the North Korean Government will respond to the UN Security Council and the unanimous condemnation of the actions that they have taken.
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): Now that London has a dedicated policing team of six front-line officers for each local authority ward, will the Deputy Leader of the House find time for a debate on rolling out that excellent scheme to the rest of the country so that residents in Cheadle and elsewhere can enjoy genuine community policing, more bobbies on the beat and the high-visibility policing for which areas such as mine are crying out?
Nigel Griffiths: Obviously, that was a manifesto commitment by the Labour Government, so I am glad that it is being carried out. Additional policing has been provided in some areas without the support of Liberal Democrats, I am sorry to say. I can give the hon. Member chapter and verse on that. It is certainly true that Liberal Democrats in Edinburgh voted against funding 32 extra police officers. Setting aside the party political points, I know that people want to ensure that the 14,000 extra police who have been funded since 1997 are visible in the community and are carrying out work. I will ensure that the Home Secretary is made aware of the hon. Member’s comments and question.
Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): When may we have a debate on the future use of reservoirs that are allegedly no longer needed for their water supply? In Cardiff, North, Western Power Distribution is planning to partly concrete over the Llanishen reservoir, despite huge public opposition and the fact that a site of special scientific interest has been identified. There is also a successful yachting club on the reservoir. The area has been a beauty spot for many years, but that is being replaced by spiked metal poles and barking Alsatians. When may we have a debate about such changes?
Nigel Griffiths: Obviously, the appropriate body with which to raise that is the Welsh Assembly Government—I am sure that my hon. Friend has done that, too. It is important that the amenity of local areas is taken properly and fully into account when reaching such decisions. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is made aware of general concerns about the possible loss of the use of reservoirs, which sounds somewhat paradoxical at a time of water shortages.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Although the Deputy Leader of the House appears to believe that debating house building is frivolous, may we have a debate on the implications for the house-building targets that are being imposed on our local authorities of the level of net immigration into this country? Ministers have made 17 statements to the House about house building over the years, but they have not discussed or quantified the implications of net immigration for those house-building targets in any of them. In the light of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that we neglect these issues at our peril, should there not be an opportunity for those of us who believe that immigrants are decent, hard-working and loyal members of the community none the less to consider rationally and calmly whether the implications of the current level of immigration for house building in the most densely populated major country in Europe are acceptable?
Nigel Griffiths: I believe that the right hon. Member is wrong. There has been ample opportunity to discuss the subject in previous debates, although the issue was perhaps not such a hot topic then because it was not being linked to immigration. I do not believe that immigration is a major driver behind the need for more housing. The break up of marriage, the smaller family unit, the fact that people are delaying getting married or forming relationships until their 30s and 40s and the fact that a vast number of people now choose to live singly because they like that lifestyle make a far bigger contribution to demand on housing and the shortage of housing than immigration. I would welcome a debate on the subject.
Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 2145, which is in my name, on labour rights in Iraq?
[That this House applauds the recent Labour Friends of Iraq (LFIQ) delegation to Erbil and Sulamaniyah to meet unions, parties, and ministers from Iraqi Kurdistan as well as 22 union leaders from Baghdad, Basra and Babel; is concerned that Iraqi Ministers, through Decree 8750 of August 2005, have frozen the monies of unions including those affiliated to the Iraqi Workers' Federation, leaving organisations which represent up to a million Iraqis and which are the bedrock of a non-sectarian civil society unable to organise and play a positive role in both the workplace and in wider society; fears that some may create sectarian client unions; urges the British Government to make representations to the Iraqi government to lift Decree 8750 and the continuing ban, first introduced in 1987 by Saddam Hussein, on public sector trade union organisation; is concerned that this ban is the basis of hostile actions against the Port Workers' Union in Khour Al-Zubeir; further notes that the LFIQ delegation was told repeatedly by union leaders and others of the potential of private foreign investment in Iraqi Kurdistan, whose Parliament is keen to encourage investment, not least in tourism and mineral extraction; and believes that those concerned for Iraqi democracy should heed the call of the Iraqi unions for urgent assistance to retrieve their independence and to increase their power as a social partner in reconstructing Iraq, which has long been isolated from modern thinking and must contend with the enormous physical and psychological legacy of dictatorship, sanctions and war.]
May we have a debate about the ongoing injustice in Iraq of the so-called democratic Government continuing to deny rights to trade unions and to hold all trade union assets, in direct contravention of International Labour Organisation conventions?
Nigel Griffiths: The Government have made direct representations on the position of Iraqi trade unions and voiced similar concerns to those expressed by my hon. Friend. I know that he visited Iraq as part of a delegation and met Iraqi trade union leaders. I understand that that has been reciprocated and that they are here today—I hope to meet them later on with him. I hope to be able to assure them that we will continue to make representations on this issue. We firmly believe in the value of trade unions.
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Last week, an education order
that will have a far greater impact on education in Northern Ireland
than the Education and
Inspections Bill will have on education in England went through in a
Committee Room upstairs after a paltry two-and-a-half hour debate. That
caused immense anger in Northern Ireland. The order is opposed by the
vast majority of people, and it might not be reversed, even if
devolution were returned. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that there
will be an opportunity properly to debate the order in the House? Will
he outline what plans he has to ensure that all Northern Ireland
legislation is treated in the same way as the rest of UK legislation,
rather than being fast-tracked through Orders in
Council?
Nigel Griffiths: As the hon. Member knows, we have made detailed plans, and we hope that by 24 November the anger he mentions will be channelled to ensure that the Assembly reconvenes and undertakes that practical work. He objects to that work being undertaken by the House—with some justification, I am sure—so I look forward to his working with us to ensure that that reconvening comes about, and I urge all parties in the process to join us. I am sorry that he thinks that the debate was not adequate, but I shall certainly look at the issue and get back to him.
Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): The Deputy Leader of the House will doubtless be aware that I have raised the issue of Remploy on a number of occasions, as it is very important to many of my constituents who are employed by the Remploy factory in Dundee, and it is emblematic of the general debates about the way in which we should help people with disabilities back into work. Bearing that in mind, will my hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that when PricewaterhouseCoopers’ review of Remploy is published it will be accompanied by an oral ministerial statement so that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have the chance to question the relevant Minister?
Nigel Griffiths: Whether or not it is accompanied by an oral statement, I am sure that there will be a chance to question the Minister. Obviously, there are regular questions on work and pensions. The next such question time is on Monday, but I do not think that PWC will have reported by then. Once the report is available, I am sure that my hon. Friend will find a way to ask questions. If the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes an oral statement, my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to do so, but there will be other opportunities, too.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House is aware that my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), the shadow Culture, Media and Sport spokesman, has written to the Deputy Prime Minister to ask for the names of three civil servants who recently accompanied him to the ranch in Colorado. In his reply, however, the Deputy Prime Minister omitted the names. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House believes that that information should be in the public domain, so what will he do next week to ensure that it is placed in the public domain?
Nigel Griffiths: Why should I be aware of such a letter? Did the hon. Member for East Devon(Mr. Swire) copy me in? If not, why not? Ask him.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): May we have a debate on irresponsible and dangerous journalism? My hon. Friend will be aware that the BBC was rightly criticised this week for attempting to entrap young Scots, but may I point out, too, that The Sun recently described Scots as “Tartan Tosspots” and said that the answer to the West Lothian question was to build Hadrian’s wall higher. Even more worryingly, however, it celebrated the fact that Scots died younger than their English counterparts. If such comments were made about any other race or religion there would rightly be a public outcry. When the Prime Minister next meets Rupert Murdoch will he ask him whether that is The Sun’s official view?
Nigel Griffiths: I will not comment on any one paper, but I deplore any such statements, just as I deplore the anti-English tone set in recent weeks by much of the Scottish media. My hon. Friend makes an important point—newspaper editors pick on any one group at their peril. He mentioned a newspaper whose circulation, I am sure, has not recovered in Liverpool after its comments about Liverpudlians. I urge newspaper editors and hon. Members to be cautious in their use of language about any group, whether it be a minority group such as the Scots or a majority group such as the English.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that one thing the Government are good at is exporting manufacturing jobs. Birmingham faces the loss of HP Sauce, and this week hundreds of job losses were announced in Cornwall, mainly as a result of energy prices. Trade unions and business are concerned about the energy penalty in the UK, so a debate is urgently needed. If we held such a debate after the recess, it would be too late to have an impact on the situation, so may we have an early debate on manufacturing, particularly in the light of the energy crisis?
Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member may not have attended Trade and Industry questions, in which hon. Members asked about energy. My colleagues share those concerns, and they are working with energy producers on supply and pricing issues, which is an important matter. In the past, British companies, in contrast to their foreign competitors, have benefited from low-cost contracts, but there is no doubt that recently they have been feeling the pressure. Of course, climate change prompts the question of the charges that we will impose on fuel and what impact that will have on business, but that is a subject for another debate.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): As a native of east Yorkshire, may I welcome the Government’s efforts to commemorate the life and work of William Wilberforce, both in this country and in north America? Can we find parliamentary time to commemorate him—he was, after all, Member of Parliament for Hull—and would not such an occasion bring a smile to the face of one of the present Members of Parliament for Hull?
Nigel Griffiths: I wholly endorse what the hon. Member said about William Wilberforce. The issue has been raised by other hon. Members who share the hon. Gentleman’s views, and we are looking at an appropriate way to recognise a terrific champion of the oppressed and one of history’s great figures.
John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): May I please reiterate the request by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on special educational needs, in which I declare an interest as the father of a two-and-a-half-year-old boy who will almost certainly have such needs. Given the publication today of a report by the Select Committee on Education and Skills and, importantly, the widespread concern about the virtual omnipotence of local education authorities, which assess, decide, pay for and, more often than not, provide for those needs, is it not vital that we have an opportunity to air the issue in the Chamber and to decide a credible and attractive policy on some of the most vulnerable children in our community?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |