| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
In relation to the Home Office capability review, the right hon. Lady did not mention an increase of 440 in the number of police officers in her area and, of course, a big drop in crime. She did mention the DFES. Astonishing additional resources have been devoted to education, with primary school and secondary school results both up. She criticised the DWP’s capability review, as a result of which unemployment in her area has been cut by more than half in nine years and long-term unemployment by two thirds.
Lastly, the right hon. Lady asked about a debate on Britain’s influence in the world, which I would be absolutely delighted to have. I make no criticism of one of my distinguished predecessors, both as Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, Lord Hurd, but it is impossible to survey the past nine years without recognising that Britain’s influence in Europe, the middle east and across the world has greatly extended and increased compared with the previous 18 years.
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 2601, tabled in my name and that of many other Members?
[That this House calls on insurance companies to take action to reduce the travel insurance premiums charged to people who have suffered from serious diseases such as cancer; notes that premiums for people in such a position can be many times higher than otherwise quoted; and calls for action to be taken to lower premiums so that insurance costs do not prohibit former patients from travelling abroad.]
The early-day motion concerns the excessive charges that insurance companies make to clients who want to go abroad and who have had serious illnesses but are in remission. For example, James Timmons in my constituency, whose case is highlighted in the Daily Record today, received a minimum quote of £350 for insurance cover to go on holiday. That is more than the price of the holiday. May we have a debate on this issue?
Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The truth is that it is our poorer constituents who get ripped off in this way. I am glad that he has raised the matter, and I will be pleased to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has responsibility for regulating the insurance industry.
Mr.
David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I thank the Leader
of the House for giving us the business. I am delighted that, even at
this stage in
the Session, it is not too late to introduce a newHome Office
Bill, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, on
Tuesday 10 October.
I think that the Government intend to move a carry-over motion for the Welfare Reform Bill on24 July. Carry-over is normally by agreement between all parties, so some discussions are necessary before the motion is moved. Before we get to that point, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Committee stage of that very important Bill is not truncated by Prorogation or for any other reason? Secondly, can it be ensured that the Committee has the necessary draft orders, which form a large part of the substance of the Bill, from the start of its proceedings?
I welcome the Leader of the House’s comments about questions during this over-long recess. The ability to put questions is important, and the ability of the Government to answer them equally so. Their record is not good over recent years. I put a named day question to the Home Office, inevitably, for 3 May, and did not receive a reply, which said that it was not prepared to answer me, until 13 July. The Treasury is even worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) tabled 15 questions for answer on the very important matter of fraud in the tax credits system, and received a single reply on Wednesday that did not answer the specific points raised. This is a key issue. If we are to hold the Government to account, there must be an understanding among Ministers and civil servants about what comprises an adequate response to a parliamentary question. Will he speak to his Cabinet colleagues and the head of the home civil service to ensure that proper answers are given?
I welcome this afternoon’s debate on foreign affairs. It is essential that we debate the grave situation in the middle east.
Let me say in response to what was said by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that there has been a change of emphasis in Foreign Office policy even since Monday, when the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), made what I thought was an extremely well-balanced statement to the House. We heard the Prime Minister’s replies on the same subject yesterday. As I have said in a speech on home affairs, we are not a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States, and our foreign policy must not appear to be dictated by the White House. That is an important issue, and I hope the debate will explore it.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman will spend the recess on his soap box in Blackburn; I will spend it undertaking my usual tour of the 120 or so villages in my constituency. I know already that the questions I will be asked will be about closures of sub-post offices, the state of agriculture, police amalgamations, and the fact that although record amounts are being spent on the health service, hospital wards are still being closed.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that on our return we debate all those important issues, so that I can tell my constituents “Fear not, your concerns will be raised as soon as Parliament resumes in October”?
Mr.
Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the
introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
It has
been a difficult Bill to get right. I began the process back in 1997,
after the Southall train crash. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in
mind his welcome for the Bill when his colleagues next start delivering
cheap shots about the number of Home Office Bills that have appeared
over the past nine years. They say that there have been 54 of them, and
indeed there have. The question is, which of those Bills should not
have been
passed?
Mr. Heath: The ones we voted against.
Mr. Straw: It is helpful to have that on the record. Many of the Bills that the hon. Gentleman voted against are the ones that are protecting our citizens and helping us to reduce crime. I am glad to have secured that admission from him.
The Welfare Reform Bill is one of two measures that we intend to carry over. I hope that that can be agreed, but if it cannot, it cannot. The purpose of carry-over has been accepted by the House, and it is very sensible. It should be borne in mind that it does not make it any easier for Government to pass legislation, because we have to ensure that it is passed within 12 months of the date of its introduction; and of course the Bill will have a normal Committee stage.
I recall hearing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions say that he would do his best to ensure that the principal draft orders were presented to the House, but I do not think he said that all of them would be. I will pass on to him what the hon. Gentleman has said.
As for Home Office questions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is present to make his daily statement or speech to the House. I am sure we all welcome that, but only those of us who have held my right hon. Friend’s portfolio quite understand how it feels to wake up each morning and hear five stories about the Home Office, one of which you may know about, four of which you have not the first idea about, and all five of which you must answer for during the rest of the day. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the backlog of questions, and I can say on his behalf that he and his colleagues have made every effort to clear it.
Ministers and officials must recognise the needfor questions to be answered, but Members must recognise—and I am pleased to say that it has been recognised in all parts of the House—that if the Order Paper is overloaded with questions in industrial quantities, tabled by researchers and in some instances unseen by the Members concerned, there are bound to be logjams. It is a real problem. I am glad to see that Members agree with that.
I am assiduous, as are all my colleagues, in ensuring that questions are answered whenever possible, but we have a problem in the House with researchers trying to prove a point, and with the TheyWorkForYou.com website, which seems to measure Members’ work in quantitative rather than qualitative terms. That is an issue for the whole House, not just for Ministers.
As for my soap box in
Blackburn, I was indeed on it on Saturday and, I am pleased to say,
received
approbation—as ever—for what had happened on8
July, after 18 years of my campaigning and being given the raspberry.
In 1998 my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras
(Frank Dobson), then Secretary of State for Health, announced that
there would be a new hospital in Blackburn. It has now been built,
£140 million has been spent on it, and on 8 July it opened for
business. That was a great day for a Labour Government and the people
of Blackburn.
Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, North) (Lab): My right hon. Friend mentioned the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. It will be warmly welcomed, particularly in the workplace. I am especially pleased to learn that Scottish measures will be included, because I believe that in Scotland we have one of the highest rates of industrial death and injury. It is important for the Bill to complete its passage. My right hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a carry-over; it is clear from the timetable that he has announced today that that will be necessary, and I hope that he will make every effort to ensure that it happens.
Mr. Straw: I guarantee that the Bill will be carried over, and I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes it. I should explain that while many aspects of criminal law are devolved, the Bill involves health and safety, and the House decided in the Scotland Act 1998 that those matters were reserved. There has, however, been substantial consultation with the Scottish Executive.
Anne Main (St. Albans) (Con): The Government’s avowed intention is to create further rail freight interchanges. I have met 400-odd constituents whoare extremely concerned about the possibility of a3.5 million sq ft interchange in the constituency. I would welcome an urgent debate on the future of rail freight and the positioning of rail freight interchanges, and I hope very much that the Government will have time to provide one.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady raises a legitimate point, but it underlines the conflicts with which we must all deal. I have been in the House for quite a long time, and year after year there are debates in which Members call for more freight to be carried by rail. We are all up for that, but of course it means that there must be interchanges with roads, and those facilities must go somewhere.
I will convey the hon. Lady’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who deals with planning, but I hope she believes that in principle it is a good idea for more freight to be carried by rail. The amount of rail freight has increased considerably during the past nine years, and, as I have said, the interchanges must go somewhere.
John Battle (Leeds, West) (Lab): As chair of the all-party group on poverty, I wish to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 2529, entitled “Lunch expenses for unemployed volunteers”.
[That this House believes
that volunteers play an important role in building and empowering
communities and that volunteering should be encouraged for all;
supports job seekers and the unemployed who make time to volunteer
whilst also seeking employment; notes with dismay the recent Department
for Work and Pensions booklet that states that volunteers on Income
Support or Job Seekers Allowance will not normally be entitled to claim
lunch as an expense; is concerned that the long-standing reimbursement
of volunteers as a way of appreciating and recognising their input may
be undermined; is further concerned that those least able to afford
volunteering are more likely to be discouraged from doing so if
reasonable expenses are not provided; notes that volunteering should
not be considered ‘basic needs'; and calls on the Department for
Work and Pensions to promote volunteering as a benefit to job seekers
and their communities, for which volunteers should have the right to
claim reasonable and essential
expenses.]
This may seem a small matter. The motion refersto a booklet produced by the Department for Work and Pensions, “A Guide to Volunteering While on Benefits”. The booklet is welcome, but buried in it is a small change in the guidance: the withdrawal of lunch expenses as a legitimate reimbursable claim. That will prevent many people on benefits from being able to volunteer.
I think all Members will agree that volunteering is a route back to contact and work. The matter is urgent, because the Government are introducing changes in incapacity benefit—which I hope we all support, because they will encourage people to return to work. If that small change in the guidelines were amended during the summer, while we are away, it would open up opportunities rather than closing them down.
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend has made an important and persuasive point, and I take it on board. I promise that I will speak personally to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and propose that the change be made.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |