| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: Well, that was very enjoyable. May I first respond to the right hon. Gentleman's points on the additional information about business after Monday week? It is actually to help him and other right hon. and hon. Members that an advance day is given. Two weeks is not normally announced. Sometimes it is, but it is not an iron rule.
The right hon. Gentleman talks of chaos. They know all about chaos on the Conservative Benches. During the past couple of days I have been wandering around the corridors of the Commons doing my business as Leader of the House. Indeed, I had a very pleasant meeting with the right hon. Gentleman the other day as part of that business. I see little huddles of Conservative Members in need of counselling. Whenever I appear anywhere near them, their tones become hushed and they give me furtive looks. I think that there is a case for a psychological counsellor for hon. Members because there is serious chaos on the Conservative Benches.
I see from The Times that the ever loyal right hon. Gentleman has been overheard in the Tea Room
- "loudly complaining that he resented being told when to get up to cheer the leader's speech last week."
- "irreconcilable malcontents, the acolytes of former leadership contenders and their friends and allies in the media."
On the question of the United States of America, the media spin that is around is absolutely amazing. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know my views on the relationship between Britain and the United States or indeed between the European Union and the United States, they are well recorded and I am happy to repeat them now. I believe that it is vital that Europe has a positive partnership with the United States and with the Administration in Washington. It is crucial for the stability of the world. Indeed, it is one of the reasons why I have been completely behind the Prime Minister's recent policies in respect of Iraq and in respect of the alliance with the United States on a number of issues confronting us, including world terrorism. That is my view. It has been my view consistently and the right hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say instead of following the media spin.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Lords appointments. Does he not realise that the Labour party has only 28 per cent. of the vote in the House of Lords? Does he really think that that is fair when we have won two landslide majorities? We have fewer than one in three of the votes in the House of Lords. Eighty-nine of the 92 hereditary peers are Conservatives. Therefore, it is important that we address the question of getting a much more representative House of Lords. In that way, the two Chambers can work together in a much more constructive fashion for the future of the people.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): Will my right hon. Friend provide time on an early occasion for a debate in the House on the Israeli plan to build a wall, which will split Bethlehem, prevent access to holy shrines sacred to the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions, hinder access to the Church of the Nativity and ruin tourism and agriculture in Bethlehem? This matter needs urgent consideration, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would arrange a debate on it.
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend. The wall is very ill-judged and is completely contrary to international opinion. It will not promote the very reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis that would give the state of Israel the security that it needs and desperately craves, after attacks from suicide bombers; nor will it give the Palestinians their own independent state. Working together in symmetry and synergy is the objective, and the wall that divides them is very ill-advised. We will consider whether we can find time for an early debate, although I should point out that the Foreign Secretary has been ready to make statements to, and make himself accountable to, the House on middle east policy.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): My colleagues and I entirely endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). On the question of the Lords, was not the Prime Minister's statement completely contrary to Government Front Benchers' claim that the steps intended will take away from No. 10 direct involvement in future membership of
the House of Lords? This claim to greater independence for so-called "democratic appointment" is clearly nonsense, and I hope that the Leader of the House will stick to his own view that the only way to make that place more representative and democratic is to have a strong element of elected membership.We, too, are disappointed that we are not being given details of the business for the week beyond next. As we understand it, one of the various motions for debate will relate to the payment of Chairs of Select Committees, and I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that that is his intention. Will he also confirm that we will be permitted a wide-ranging debate that will look at the context of that proposal? It is surely important that we think very carefully about career paths other than just Select Committees. For example, there are not many enthusiastic recruits for the Chairman's Panel, and if the purpose is to provide incentives, surely the Chairman's Panel is just as important as Select Committees. Indeed, I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) agrees that the same point applies to membership of the House of Commons Commission. Also, will there be a limit on the term for Select Committee Chairmen? The strong recommendation was made that a deal should be struck, whereby if new patronage is given to Whips on both sides to nominate Select Committee Chairmen, they should be allowed to do so for a limited period only.
Should we not also look at the value for money that the taxpayer is getting for existing salaries paid to Members of this House who are not Ministers? For example, in the current year, the Conservative Chief Whip is receiving an additional £37,055, presumably to give him the extra expertise to undertake the career development interviews of which we are all aware. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members are listening carefully. In addition to his salary, the leader of the Conservative party is getting £65,482 per year, which is very doubtful in terms of value for money. His office—this may be particularly relevant—is getting £548,101 for its running, plus £83,784 for travel.
It so happens that the leader of the Conservative party is visiting my constituency today, so there is nothing personal in this. Indeed, I am delighted that he is there: after one of his predecessors visited North Cornwall, my majority went up from just under 2,000 to just under 14,000. So I hope that the current Conservative leader is having a very happy day with my constituents, but on a serious point, in the context of the burden on the taxpayer that the Conservatives are always going on about, and their opposition to the state funding of political parties, this is nonsense and complete hypocrisy. May we have a general debate on this issue?
Mr. Hain: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman in that, after the night of the long knives for Liberal Democrat Front Benchers—in which everybody else was reshuffled to the right—he, at least, has stayed true to his principles and kept his job? That is very good news for all of us.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I voted for a 100 per cent. elected House of Lords, and for other options that would still retain a significant elected membership. Unfortunately, there was no consensus in the House of Commons for any of those elected options.
Let me deal with the point on which the hon. Gentleman seeks to make mischief. The Prime Minister's comments should be viewed in the context of the Labour party's commitment in the manifesto on which it won the last election. Accordingly, non-party members in the House of Lords should be appointed by an independent commission—and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, so that there could be no question of cronies.
As to the Senior Salaries Review Board report on the payment of Chairmen of Select Committees and other Committees, I intend to have a debate as early as possible so that consideration can be given to that matter. I also welcome the report published yesterday by the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is an excellent report that will provide us with a way through, and I am sure that the whole House will want to thank him for it. It is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman made valid points about parallel career paths and rewarding Members for taking on positions of seniority and responsibility, and we should view the debate in that context. I shall also lay before the House several other motions in respect of those issues.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the salary paid to the Tory Chief Whip. Let me come to his defence, because he has been very busy recently. If there were provision to claim overtime, I guess that he would have claimed it, so the hon. Gentleman should not knock him too hard. My heart is with the Opposition Chief Whip and all my energy is behind him. He should keep the Leader of the Conservative party in his position because he is doing a great job for the Labour party—and, indeed, for the Liberal Democrats. I am obviously in a charitable mood this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the salary of the Leader of the Opposition. As he knows, the current position has existed for a long time. The hon. Gentleman's party aspires to be the main Opposition party, so is he telling me that his party would turn the salary down?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |