| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 Jan 2003 : Column 441—continued
Mr. Cook: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the measures that we are taking to curb abuse of the right to buy—[Interruption.] Abuse is the correct word. Private speculative companies are going round putting up money on an agreement with tenants that they will purchase the houses from them three years subsequently. That is happening, and I would be sorry if any Member of the House, even among the Conservative party, did not recognise that that is an abuse, and one that we are right to try to curb. The hon. Gentleman said that in some areas of acute housing demand, a real crisis of social housing is being created. That is why, in a limited number of target areas, the Deputy Prime Minister has acted. Some of his proposals will require primary legislation, full debate and examination in this House, in the course of which the hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to make those excellent points, with which we fully agree.
I have not, as yet, studied fully the Lord Chancellor's speech so I cannot therefore say whether it is a bloodcurdling diatribe. On the whole, however, bloodcurdling diatribes are better studied in the hours of darkness than in the morning. On the question of the centre of gravity, I stress to the House that it is important that all of us—this is not just a matter for me, the Lord Chancellor or the Government—try to identify our centre of gravity on 4 February. That will require Members to show some flexibility, not necessarily insisting on their first and best priority, but finding common ground with others on where the best compromise can be found with the largest support for reform of the second Chamber. I would be surprised if that compromise did not require some form of mixed membership. A year ago, the Government committed themselves to mixed membership of the upper House when we proposed 20 per cent. elected and 80 per cent. appointed. It is not my impression that that White Paper was unpopular because it proposed 20 per cent. elected members; the difficulty with public opinion was in relation to the 80 per cent. appointed. I am doubtful about whether we will remove those anxieties on the part of public opinion by going for 100 per cent. appointed.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the reopening of the custody suite at Chorley? It seems absurd that a population of 100,000—a constituency of 80 square miles—does not have lock-up facilities for the police, and that prisoners must be taken to Skelmersdale, which is way outside the constituency. That takes much-needed police off the streets: two policemen are required when someone is arrested.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend, which he expresses forcefully, on behalf of his
constituents. In the first instance, as he will appreciate, this is a matter for the local police authorities, not for me, and it would be wrong for the Government to insist on the precise location of police cells. I am sure that his request will be well reported in his locality and will be heard.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): Inevitably, the Foreign Secretary's mind is on the fight against terrorism and the situation in Iraq. Can I urge, however, that he does not take his eye off Zimbabwe? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to come to the Dispatch Box next week? First, can the House be assured that we will veto Mugabe's visit to Paris, apparently on President Chirac's extremely unwise invitation? Secondly, can we have a fuller response than the one that we received in Westminster Hall, when Ministers said that they were sympathetic to tougher and tighter smart sanctions against the regime, including against business men who are funding that regime?
Mr. Cook: First, I say to the hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Right hon. Gentleman."] I stand corrected. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I fully share his view on the importance of upholding the ban on travel by Mugabe and his associates? Currently, 79 of them are named in the EU ban, and it is important that that ban is upheld and observed by all 15 countries that voted for it, including France. In Monday's meeting of the General Affairs Council, I understand that there will be a debate on taking forward the extension of that ban, which will expire next month unless such a decision is taken. Britain will of course seek to make sure that that ban is extended, and I want that ban to be upheld fully by all member states of the European Union. We will continue to review what sanctions we can take against Zimbabwe that will bring home to the regime our total condemnation of the way in which it is behaving and our particular abhorrence of the way in which it is interfering, with political motivation, in the distribution of food. No civilised person could possibly uphold the idea that food should be denied to people because of the way in which they had voted in the past. We are, of course, also very sensitive to the fact that any decision that we take must not increase the hardship and suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. We want to show that Britain is on their side. Our enemy is not the people of Zimbabwe; our concern is the regime in Zimbabwe.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all those involved in the decision on the fact that, today and for the first time, there will be a cross-departmental question time in Westminster Hall on youth policy? When he considers the future business for Westminster Hall, may I urge him to learn from this example and to consider whether we can hold many more of this type of question time?
Mr. Cook: I am very glad that we are holding the innovative cross-cutting question session. That is one of the products of the modernisation agenda that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) keeps condemning. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his part in pressing for this. I very much hope that hon. Members will take part in the session in the spirit in
which it is offered. It will provide an opportunity for an informal, reflective exchange of views that can take place not necessarily with the party-political heat that is associated with this Chamber. I am conscious of the fact that the debate will be watched by much of the youth press and by many young people to see how seriously Parliament takes political issues and the political views of young people. If it is a success, as I hope that it will be, we will certainly look for opportunities to repeat this experiment in Westminster Hall.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): To return to the debate that the Leader of the House has announced for 4 February—the second leg of the two-day debate on House of Lords reform—he will recall that, in his important contribution to the debate on Tuesday, he repeatedly referred to the Labour manifesto that committed the party to a more democratic upper House. Against that background, can he give the House an unequivocal assurance that there can be no question of the Prime Minister voting for a wholly appointed second Chamber?
Mr. Cook: I would not seek to give an assurance on behalf of any Member of the House. Seven options will be before the House and any Member is open to vote for any of those seven options. I have made my position clear from the Dispatch Box, and I will do so again on 4 February. There is no collective Government view on the matter, and I would deprecate any attempts to read into the expression of view of any one member of the Government a collective view on behalf of everybody else.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East): After yesterday's statement on higher education, will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on student funding? Many Labour Members seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills that his proposals to allow vice-chancellors to charge differing fees will not mean that kids from the poorest backgrounds will be priced out of going to the best universities.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand that there is great interest in the House in yesterday's statement. I am sure that we will have a number of other opportunities to reflect on and explore its proposals. I invite my hon. Friend to give credit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for those elements of the proposals that will particularly assist children who come from the socio-economic groups that are under-represented at university. First, pressure will be applied to make sure that all universities take seriously their obligations to ensure that they offer fair access and seek to open their doors to people who may not have traditionally gone to them. Secondly, the abolition of upfront fees will be a material consideration to students from poorer backgrounds. Perhaps most important of all, the reintroduction of maintenance grants will apply to the students that my hon. Friend mentioned. That means that 30 per cent. of all students will receive a maintenance grant of £1,000. At present, they do not get it, and it will make quite a difference to a number of students who are considering whether they can afford full-time education at university.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge): May we add our congratulations to the Leader of the House on the
decision to hold a cross-cutting debate on youth policy? I am sure that it will be a success. What other subjects is he considering for future debates? Will it be possible to hold questions on vocational education? I ask that, because he might not be aware that agricultural courses are being cut across the country. In my constituency, we have the proposed closure of Seale Hayne college, and it would be helpful if Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from the Department for Education and Skills could come along to discuss access to agricultural education.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |