| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robathan: I asked for a debate.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, but does the hon. Gentleman support the Government's policy of bringing Libya into the international community rather than its sitting outside as a rogue state? I should have thought that everybody would support the policy, and the Prime Minister's visit has been welcomed by the families of victims of the Lockerbie disaster and, indeed, by the family of WPC Fletcher. The problem goes back over many years, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) began to resolve it, a process that the Foreign Secretary has taken forward. The Prime Minister's visit symbolises the beginning of a new process by which Libya complies fully with international standards.
As for ethical foreign policy, the truth is that the Government, through an arms exports policy that bans the export of arms that could be used for internal repression or external aggression, have adopted a policy based on the highest possible standards and ethics, which stands scrutiny anywhere in the world. In many other respects, we promote human rights across the world.
Mr. Robathan indicated dissent.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the Conservative Government had a shabby record on arms exports and human rights. The Labour Government have established a good reputation as a result of the high standards that we have introduced.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): Yesterday was an Opposition half day, and, once again, the subject matter was not revealed to the rest of the House until the morning of the debate. I understand why the official Opposition take some time to dream up a subject on which they can attack the Government, but whether that is a matter of tactics or incompetence, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not right or fair to the rest of the House for the subject matter of Opposition debates to be brought up at the last minute, which happens frequently? Will he consider introducing a system whereby, if fair notice of the subject matter for Opposition day debates is not given, the time will be forfeit and awarded either to the other Opposition parties or, indeed, to the Government to focus on the consequences of Tory policies, if the Conservative party were elected.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friends shout, "Good idea" and, "Hear, hear" at that suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) makes an important point, which I have raised with the shadow Leader of the House on a number of occasions, although, to be fair, I know that advance notice has been given of next week's Opposition topics, for which I am grateful. None the less, my hon. Friend cannot intervene in a debate on, for example, post offices, if he can only find out the topic on the morning of the debate, and that prevents hon. Members from organising their business. Advance notice is courteous to the House and is part of good procedure and process. I hope that the Opposition will bear that in mind, as they have done for next week.
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): This week, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence took the unusual step of recommending the withdrawal of disposable tonsillectomy instruments following a number of unfortunate post-operative haemorrhages and an audit by the university of Birmingham. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Secretary of State for
Health should come to the House to explain why his Department advised the use of those instruments in the first place? Does he agree with the parents of deceased toddler Crawford Roney that an urgent investigation is needed into exactly what went wrong in Richmond house three or four years ago?
Mr. Hain: That incident is obviously serious, which is why the Secretary of State has put in place stringent standards and inspection arrangements. I know that the Secretary of State for Health will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's points and make sure that the appropriate procedures and policies are implemented.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): In the light of the publication of final council tax levels from local authorities, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about the future of local taxation, so that we can compare and contrast various proposals, particularly local income tax? We could also consider the effect of the £100 to help pensioners with their council tax that the Chancellor recently announced.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend's suggestion is welcome, and business managers and the Deputy Prime Minister will want to examine it. The House would do well to reflect on the different solutions to the problems with council tax, which we inherited from the previous Government and have continued to operate. On the one hand, the Government are committed to low council tax increases, as evidenced by the general level of settlement this time; on the other hand, the shadow Chancellor has announced that a future Conservative Government would cut local government budgets by £2.4 billion in their first two years, which would result in sky-high council tax increases. That is the choice: it is between a Labour Government who continue to invest in high standards of public service and provide local government with the resources that it needs, or a Conservative Government committed to cutting local government budgets, which would put council tax increases through the roof.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): May we have a debate on the music industry, which the National Music Council reports as contributing £3.6 billion per year to the UK economy? Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that protecting copyright is important to the health of the industry, which loses £241 million a year through internet downloads? The key is to educate people about the importance of copyright protection, and can we therefore debate today's announcement by the British Phonographic Industry, which is launching a scheme to warn significant illegal uploaders of music on to the internet that they are breaching the law?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is an accomplished guitarist, and he therefore takes a personal interest in the matter. All music lovers want to know that our music industry is properly protected, and that the sort of practices to which he referred are not allowed to continue without restriction. I know that the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Culture, Media and Sport will study his remarks closely, and they are alive to the problem, which they are working on solving.
Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on human rights and fair trials abroad following the sentencing of my constituent, Majid Narwaz, to five years in prison in Cairo? He has already been detained there for two years. His trial was a disgrace, and the charges were entirely trumped up. When the Leader of the House arranges such a debate, will he ask the Prime Minister to attend and to explain to the House why he has refused to get involved in that case?
Mr. Hain: Such cases are sensitive. The hon. Gentleman has properly raised the case of his constituent on the Floor of the House, and the Foreign Secretary will want to study his remarks closely. However, there have been serious problems with terrorism in Egypt, and the Egyptian authorities have repeatedly made representations to us about British citizens whom they allege are involved. I do not know whether that is true, but the hon. Gentleman takes one view of that particular case, and the Foreign Office will want to study what he said closely.
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): I fully realise the sensitivities of this issue, but is the Leader of the House in a position to confirm that he has taken security advice on the type and scope of demonstrations in Parliament square? It clearly makes very little sense at the moment to allow the erection of a series of banners that form a barrier directly outside the main entrance to Parliament, restricting the field of view and the ability of the armed police to operate.
Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There is a balance to be struck between the right to protest, which is an ancient and honourable part of our democracy—the hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement—and proper security for the House of Commons in an era of terrorism and threats from al-Qaeda directed specifically at Britain and at important institutions of the British state, including Westminster.
Points of Order
1.20 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), it might be helpful if I indicate that the Opposition generally provide the topics for their Opposition days if they fall on a Monday or a Tuesday, but in the interests of topicality we do not do that in respect of Wednesdays and Thursdays.
Mr. Speaker: That sounds more like putting the matter on the record than a point of order.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |