| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We had many excellent contributions. It had seemed as if it might not be possible to get through the great number of issues that were raised, but I shall certainly try to. Following the cricket analogy, I should note that
my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) was our opening batsman and did a great job. He raised the issues of manufacturing jobs, the Forensic Science Service, his local hospice, Equitable Life, the HM Revenue and Customs office in Chorley, which we learned was an award-winning tax office, and fuel duty in rural areas. His speech was a model of how to get as many topics into a recess Adjournment debate as possible-particularly as he had only seven minutes.
Barbara Keeley: Yes, but we noticed that he did use some of another Member's time by intervening.
Other hon. Members also managed to fit in many subjects. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) included at least nine or 10.
Barbara Keeley: Twelve, was it? I lost track. They came thick and fast.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the funding of a young athlete, and I know that the publicity that he has given to that young athlete can really help. I have in my constituency a promising young triathlete called Aimee Backhouse, so I have managed to give her a mention, as the hon. Gentleman gave one to his constituent, and that is a great thing to do.
Mr. Hoyle: As my hon. Friend has mentioned the tax office and the importance of Chorley, will she arrange another meeting about the future of the tax office closure programme?
Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend raised many subjects, but, where appropriate, we will try to get him meetings, and answers, on the topics that he raised, as we will do with all hon. Members who are here tonight.
Some hon. Members' speeches had a different format and focused on a single issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is not in his place, talked about delays in investigating freedom of information requests, and we will try to get him the answer that he wants.
Mr. Hoyle: He's on his way to Pendle.
Barbara Keeley: Yes. [ Interruption. ] He's moved.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) also made a case for claimants of exportable benefits such as disability living allowance, following the European Court of Justice ruling, and he commented on some other issues, too.
Let me turn to the couple of issues to which a number of Members referred. On Equitable Life, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) said that if regulators fail, that causes problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley was concerned about the answers that he had heard today, and the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was concerned about hardship. The hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) also commented on the issue.
Mr. Drew: I have been sympathetic, although not entirely sympathetic, to the ombudsman's case. It would be useful if she came to this place and talked directly to Members about her case; there is now some confusion and a degree of interpretation about that. I have offered to go and see the ombudsman-I should say that I went to school with her, although she does not realise that. [Interruption.] I did not sit next to her. She should come here and explain her case. Will my hon. Friend set that in motion?
Barbara Keeley: It is not my role to set that in motion, but I can refer it on.
I return to Members' comments on Equitable Life. Earlier, we had an urgent question on the matter, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury raised some key points. The point at issue relates to the failure of regulators, but my right hon. Friend feels strongly that the Government are not the compensator of last resort. He made that key point today.
A number of hon. Members asked whether we could lay out the timetable. They need to know when action will be taken, and I shall take that message away and communicate it again. I say to any hon. Member who was not here earlier that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accepted the need for a timetable and said that he would try to provide a "long-stop date", as he called it, for resolution. He has already agreed to come back to the House to try to provide that.
Barry Gardiner: I understand what my hon. Friend has said about the Government not being the compensator of last resort in these matters. However, does she not agree that the most important point, made repeatedly in the House and in Westminster Hall debates on this matter, is that members of the Equitable Life scheme are now dying? It is unjust for people to be left in a state of limbo. The issue must be addressed with extreme urgency, because we cannot let it linger and fester as it has done.
Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend has made his point very well, as have other hon. Members. We will communicate them all. However, it is worth reflecting that the Chief Secretary has said that he will come back with "a long-stop date" and try to give us a timetable.
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is generous with her time. [Interruption.] She has a bit of it to kill.
Is there an estimate of how many people will have died before any compensation is paid in respect of Equitable Life? What time scale is involved? There is a "long-stop date", but what does that mean? The truth is that the people have waited for long enough. The time is now ripe to pay them; they should not have to wait any longer. What pressure can my hon. Friend put on the Treasury so that it comes back with the answers that all our constituents want to hear?
Barbara Keeley: I can put the pressure of all the comments made by hon. Members this evening. I think that that is sufficient. The issue has been raised and some good points have been made. I will make sure that they get through.
Mr. Chope:
One issue that is four-square within the hon. Lady's responsibility as a business manager is whether we can have a substantive motion and debate
on Equitable Life. Earlier today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that such a debate was a matter for the business managers. I asked her specifically whether she could give us an undertaking tonight that the Government would bring forward a substantive motion when we return in the autumn. In that way, we can test the will of the House in relation to the Government's policies on Equitable Life. Will she agree to do that?
Barbara Keeley: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot agree to do that at this moment. However, I reiterate the point that there will be a report from Sir John in August. After it comes out, we will see what the situation is and what is the appropriate thing to do. We have had debates and oral questions on the matter and we will continue to treat it with the importance that Members have highlighted.
Mr. Moore: Can the Minister explain why it would not be in order to have a debate on a substantive motion in this place?
Barbara Keeley: I am not saying that it will not be; I am just saying that it is something that we can come back to. If hon. Members want to raise it again as soon as we get back, we should have Sir John Chadwick's report, and probably a much better idea of the timetable.
John McDonnell: Could my hon. Friend at least report the sense in the House that the debate needs to be time-limited-in my view it needs to be before the Queen's Speech, so some time in October, or at least no later than November-and that it should be on a substantive motion so that the House can express its will?
Barbara Keeley: I will certainly express the strong opinions and feelings that Members have raised.
Several Members addressed similar issues, but sometimes in different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley appealed for a national jobs summit and a short-time working subsidy. He particularly talked about supporting people staying in jobs-an important sentiment that fits in well with the policy theme of the Government.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine appealed for tax incentives for the future. He wants to incentivise companies in west Aberdeenshire, focusing on smaller and more nimble ones that he thinks are particularly important in that context. I noted his comments about supporting and maintaining platforms and pipelines.
Sir Robert Smith: May I emphasise that those were not just my wishes, as there was also a Select Committee report on the matter?
Barbara Keeley: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) raised an issue of concern that has been discussed in this Chamber recently-the loss of jobs and poor redundancy payments at Vestas. There are several issues to be taken on board, and I am encouraged by his positive comments on work with Ministers.
John McDonnell: Vestas workers are occupying their factory, and it behoves this House to send our support to them. They are not only fighting for their jobs but are at the forefront of the campaign against climate change, and they deserve our support.
Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. I understand that there are some differences, because Vestas made wind turbines for the American market, but points have been well made in the House.
Mr. Hoyle: I recognise that the products were for the American market. However, given that the Government are, rightly, expanding the UK market, with more wind farms offshore and onshore, what can we do to ensure that some of that work is put into the Vestas factory on the Isle of Wight to keep this country's manufacturing base going?
Barbara Keeley: That is a very good point.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight talked about the importance of the South East England Development Agency. The Government have worked closely with SEEDA, which set up a taskforce as soon as the consultation was announced. However, it seems as though decisions are being taken very quickly, which is a pity.
We should not forget the textile industry, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, particularly the important issues concerning the cashmere knitting industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) outlined the variety of problems created for her constituents by leasehold management agents. There have been similar instances in my own constituency, particularly in connection with insurance cover. I will ensure that she gets the answers she wants on the two matters that she raised.
Alison Seabeck: Will my hon. Friend take back to Ministers the need to look at what they are doing in the private rented sector and link it across not only to letting agents but to managing agents? That is extremely important. There is a lot of common ground that we could legislate on, and over which the profession itself would like to see some controls.
Barbara Keeley: A constituent of mine who was also a councillor had great success in representing residents in tackling the insurance problem, which applies in other parts of the country.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) raised the tricky question of fluoridation, which also arises for us in the north-west. He covered the issues well, noting that it is difficult for MPs to influence the situation because the decisions are taken out of our hands.
Mr. Drew: There is an active all-party group on fluoridation, which has exposed some practices and the way in which area health authorities have tried to drive fluoridation forward. Should not the House have a further opportunity to review the use of fluoridation as an alternative to good dental practice? It is not acceptable, and that should be said loud and clear.
Barbara Keeley: That is an interesting thought. I have a dental surgeon friend, who probably would not agree, but the point is worth making.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raised alleged fraud in the NHS; he is not in his place, so I simply say that I shall try to get him an answer.
The right hon. Member for West Derbyshire made strong representations about the new protections under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and the Criminal Records Bureau checks for those hosting foreign students. I will pass on his representations, but I disagree with him. I believe-and I think that my view is shared by the Department for Children, Schools and Families-that we must be careful to take enough steps to safeguard children. Some vulnerabilities attach to young people who go into people's homes when they are on exchange or foreign trips, and the protection may prove important.
Mr. McLoughlin: Does the Deputy Leader of the House believe that foreign exchange visits are important, or is she willing for them to end if they entail such a bureaucratic system that schools will no longer engage in them?
Barbara Keeley: That must be kept under review, but I have been responsible in local government for schools services, and it is difficult when one believes that there are child protection issues. Protection must be across the board, and those who want to host visits should be ready to be checked-just as all those who visit schools, including Members of Parliament and authors, should be willing to be checked, as councillors have to be. [Interruption.] We must agree to differ, and I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's representations.
Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady skirts around an issue that raised its head in the past week. Some prominent authors have already said that they will not visit schools. Many Members of Parliament have work experience students, who are under the age of majority, working with them. There is a danger that we will find ourselves in the same position as the authors, and that such citizenship work will come to an end because people are unwilling to go through the process.
Barbara Keeley: I do not believe that authors should stop visiting schools or that people should have a problem with certification for visits. However, if it is a problem, we must keep it under review.
Several hon. Members have praised Ministers for their work; that is rare in such a debate.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): Not from this side.
Barbara Keeley: Yes, they have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) praised a Foreign Office Minister-I think he meant my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda-for his quick response concerning the military junta that has taken over the Government in Honduras. I will pass on his comments, but also his concern that the Government should take up the implacable position that he would like.
Colin Burgon: I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is currently visiting a couple of countries in Latin America. Will my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House use her powers to direct him to visit Honduras to lecture the military junta on the bad steps that they have taken?
Barbara Keeley: I do not know whether my powers extend to directing my hon. Friend in such a way, but I will pass on that representation to him.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight wanted to thank Ministers for their actions on Vestas, but I will follow up the response for which he is waiting from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. I note that the hon. Gentleman is also getting on with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers about fallen livestock-a subject that he has raised previously in such debates.
As is always the case in such debates, I do not agree with everything that everyone has said, but this is an useful opportunity for hon. Members to express what they feel. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) made representations on behalf of Ronnie Biggs. I fear that I do not agree with him.
Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend started with a cricket metaphor, so will she recognise that the friends and family of Mr. Biggs are sad that he is not out? Will she also confirm that the parole board recommended that he be released-that he be out-and that the decision by the Secretary of State for Justice against that is not a judicial one, but a political one?
Barbara Keeley: One could take that view, but Mr. Biggs served only one year of a 30-year sentence for a crime that involved violence, even if it was not violence that he instigated. The Justice Secretary has to take into account the feelings of all the families involved, including the family of the person who was lost.
I have already touched on one of the things that the hon. Member for Christchurch raised, but he also talked about the regional spatial strategy. It seems a shame that it has taken longer than expected to settle the timetable for those arrangements. I will pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend the South West Regional Grand Committee on 3 September. In fact, I hope that all hon. Members will attend their Regional Grand Committees in September and October.
Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Barbara Keeley: I really need to make some progress now.
Let me deal with the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner). It is difficult to comment on some issues that hon. Members have raised, because they have done that vital thing that a constituency MP does, namely raise various local issues. We heard that he wants happy children in his constituency, not victims of Happy Child Ltd. He also raised a serious concern about bailiffs being out of control. If anything can be done in legislative or other terms, that would be helpful.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |