| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Feb 2003 : Column 446—continued
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his views. If I remember rightly, I also heard him expressing them this morning on the "Today" programme. He draws attention to one of the interesting features of Tuesday's votes, which is that 334 Members of the House voted for one or other of the options for a largely or wholly elected second Chamber, which is substantially more than voted for an all-appointed House. I personally regret, however, that my warning, that it was important for all who supported a largely elected House to vote for all those options, was not listened to by more hon. Members. The tragedy is that,
on Tuesday, there was no single Division in which those 334 supported one of those options. If there had been, we would not be having this exchange today.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the plight of the British citizens who have been locked up in Saudi Arabia for more than two years, having been accused of bombing other expats over a fall-out about illegal alcohol production and sales. The family of one of those men, Sandy Mitchell, has asked me to raise the issue of his continued incarceration, because of his poor and deteriorating health. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make representations to the Saudi Government to ask for Mr. Mitchell's release on humanitarian grounds? Will he also report to the House any progress made on the plight of the others?
Mr. Cook: Before I respond, may I say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that we should speculate on any of the background that may have led to the arrests of these gentlemen? I would not wish anything that I say in response to her to be seen to endorse the claim that they had anything to do with activities relating to the provision of alcohol. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the welfare of these British citizens and I can assure her that the Foreign Office has been making representations on consular grounds for a long time regarding their welfare and their legal treatment. It was doing so even before the general election, and has continued to do so since. I will certainly draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend's observations today.
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster): I apologise for returning to the issue of the congestion charge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) brought up earlier, but I have written on a couple of occasions to the Leader of the House on the matter without getting a satisfactory response. I am one of seven Members of Parliament who will have to cross the congestion charge zone to carry out their constituency duties. I will not reimbursed for that. However, the large number of Ministers in Parliament will be reimbursed, although the Leader of the House said when he wrote to me some time ago that the purpose of the charge was to prevent the everyday use of cars. Will he now ensure that Ministers are not exempt from the congestion charge? Will he also tell me which constituency duties in Livingston he feels should not be compensated for? It is an absolute disgrace that the seven central London Members of Parliament will have to go about their everyday duties without receiving compensation in the way that I have set out.
Mr. Cook: The mileage allowance for Livingston is identical to the mileage allowance for any other constituency the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. On the congestion charge, the issue has been examined not only by me but by the advisory panel to the Speaker. We have all come to the same conclusion, which is that, as the charge is a tax, it would be improper for the House to reimburse Members for it out of our
allowance system. Nor is there any exemption for Ministers. Ministers travelling by private car will have to pay the charge in the same way as anybody else, and when they travel in a ministerial car, the corporate fleet will be charged in the same way as any other corporate fleet.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East): Will my right hon. Friend set a date on which the House can review the new working arrangements? Is he aware that many of us who voted for the reforms did not fully appreciate that we were voting for the parliamentary equivalent of the split shift rota, with a late ending on a Monday and an unfeasibly early start for Committees on a Tuesday? I am afraid that many of us think that these family-friendly policies have left us all knackered.
Mr. Cook: I am very sorry to hear that my hon. Friend felt that he did not fully appreciate what he was voting for. In fairness, I should say that I tried, at great length and over a long period of time, to explain what he was voting for, and I suggest that he considers it more carefully before he votes again.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): In view of the strong feeling in the House and the country that when dealing with the Iraqi dictator we should proceed democratically and work through the United Nations, will the Leader of the House give us an early opportunity to debate the important testimony submitted by the United States Secretary of State, so that the House can hear the Government's view of what does constitute proof?
Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary of course responded immediately to Mr. Colin Powell's statement. He did so in the Security Council. His view is on the record, and is well known.
I am sure that we shall return to this issue on a number of occasions, and when we do Mr. Powell's evidence will obviously be one of the factors that we shall wish to take into account. I personally felt that the evidence that he provided of concealment and evasion in respect of the inspectors' work was an interesting addition to the debate, and one that should be troubling.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth): Does the Leader of the House recall the Deputy Prime Minister's saying in his statement yesterday that he intended to present a housing Bill one of whose provisions would give local authorities enhanced powers to deal with unscrupulous private landlords who are ruining local communities? Those powers are urgently needed in former mining communities such as Featherstone, Hemsworth and South Elmsall, where the activities of such landlords are not just blighting communities but leading to their abandonment. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government intend to legislate robustly, and will he take my voice, at least, as encouragement to them to act expeditiously?
Mr. Cook: I entirely understand the importance of this measure, especially in deprived areas and areas where there is not much housing demand. I agree that we need a clearer, better system of licensing private
landlords in order to check abuse in the sector, and I assure my hon. Friend that that will be an important element of the forthcoming draft housing Bill.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge): Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the proposed changes in arrangements for payment of benefits through post offices? As he may know, forms and information packs will not be issued until the end of March, just before the change. There is a lot of uncertainty among postmasters, who want to have the information much earlier. Post offices, including the one at Milber in my constituency, are still closing. The Milber postmaster blames the Government, firmly and squarely, for the closure of his post office.
Mr. Cook: Of course the fullest possible information should be provided at the earliest opportunity. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's observations are passed to the Departments concerned. It is also important, however, for us to give members of the public maximum freedom to decide how they wish their benefit to be paid. All Members should support that important principle, which might well result in some people choosing to receive their benefit in other ways. We should not deny them that opportunity.
Jim Knight (South Dorset): I share others' disappointment over Tuesday's votes, especially as a Labour Member, but I take some crumbs of comfort from the fact that most Labour Members who voted supported "wholly elected" or "substantially elected" options. I think, however, that many Members were confused about how to vote if they supported indirect election, and also about the roles and powers of a second Chamber. Could not the Joint Committee do a bit more work on those issues?
Mr. Cook: I do not think there is any need for further work on the roles and powers of a second Chamber, as I think there is almost universal consensus on that principle, and when dealing with this issue one clings strongly to principles that have achieved universal consensus. Certainly the Joint Committee needs to work this out a bit more, but I do not think there is any disagreement on the fact that the second Chamber should be a revising Chamber, the fact that it should have power to delay but not to veto legislation, and the fact that it should have no powers over taxation.
I am aware that a number of colleagues believed that by voting for appointment they were voting for indirect election. I am all for taking them at their word and seeing whether we can find a greater consensus in favour of a democratic mandate through indirect election than we secured on Tuesday. I am glad that the Chairman of the Joint Committee said today that the Committee would examine the possibility of working out an option including indirect election at least in part.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |