| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: I am delighted that the shadow Leader is in such good, frisky form, as he has been a bit subdued lately. I congratulate him on his triumph, after a long and arduous campaign, in finally getting rid of his leader and his Chief Whip, too. I wish him every luck in the forthcoming reshuffle. I see that his party's short experiment with democracy has given way to leaders once again emerging from smoke-filled rooms—a Magic Circle method of choosing a leader that I thought it had abandoned 40 years ago.
On the right hon. Gentleman's specific points, I share his thoughts and sympathies with the Thatcher family, and I agree that Sir Denis Thatcher was unique in every way. On the question of time for a debate on cannabis, I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, but the fact is that the issue was debated vigorously yesterday, and the Government brought forward that debate for precisely that reason. On the question of disruption of communications through the post, clearly everybody wants the dispute to be settled quickly. I am sure that Post Office workers and Royal Mail staff want it to be settled quickly, as do the management and the Government. Talks are now taking place and I hope that they succeed. Ultimately, all disputes end in a negotiated settlement, which is how this one will end, so I hope that that can be achieved sooner rather than later.
The question of General de Chastelain and Northern Ireland is really one of the right hon. Gentleman's worn out old gramophone records. The issues have been fully answered successively. Indeed yesterday, while the right hon. Gentleman was away plotting to get rid of his leader, the Prime Minister answered the question fully and clearly. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), answered it fully and clearly on Monday and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland answered it fully and clearly yesterday. It is time that the state-funded Conservative party started to support the Government on getting a resolution to the Northern Ireland situation. When we were in opposition, we supported the Conservative Government and John Major when he took the peace process forward. Rather than stabbing us in the back, it is time for the Conservative party to support us in getting a resolution to the crisis.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Will the Leader of the House find an early opportunity to make a statement available to the House, or to make one himself, on the apparent confusion about the Government's policy on
reform of the House of Lords? He mentioned postal communications, but there seems to be a real communication problem between No. 10 and the Department that we have learned to love as DCAF.The Lord Chancellor recently said publicly to hon. Members that he does not regard the door on the future democratic and representative composition of the second Chamber to be closed. If that is true, it widens the scope of the consultation that is taking place on the Government's September White Paper and the response to the Joint Committee in July. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome that, as do I, but it puts the whole issue back in the melting pot. It seems that there could be a rush towards introducing a tinkering Bill on reform after the Queen's Speech. If so, there will not be an opportunity for the consultation that the Lord Chancellor suggests.
The Leader of the House will recall that this House voted substantially against an all-appointed second Chamber, because he too voted that way. If we are to revisit the issue, will he assure us that we will hear a statement about the Government's position and that there will be a proper opportunity for cross-party debate by whatever mechanism he considers appropriate?
Will the Leader of the House clear up an additional mystery that arose yesterday? When responding to a question from the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), the Prime Minister gave the impression that there would be an open debate with a free vote at some point. What will the debate be about? Will it simply be about the Bill? Will it be a debate on wider issues? Will there be a free vote?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify the situation—at least for him, because I think that it is perfectly clear. We are consulting on a relatively straightforward Bill to abolish the hereditary peers, which I am sure his party will want to back, and to establish an independent appointments commission to address non-party peers and to check the propriety of party-appointed peers. That is a specific exercise. However, we have made it clear that in the longer term, given that the House could not agree on an option for reform, the door remains open to bring about a settlement that will survive and be sustainable in the long term. As the Prime Minister made it clear, we will want to consult on that and people will want to express their views freely. There is a distinction between the completion of the consultation exercise and the introduction of subsequent legislation and finding out, in the long term, whether we can reach consensus on a more democratic alternative which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I voted for earlier this year—along with him, I guess.
Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield): My right hon. Friend is aware that 6 June next year marks the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Many hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber are worried about the organisation of that. As we approach Armistice Sunday, will he give us time for a full debate on the issue so that hon. Members' worries may be eased?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. We obviously want the 60th anniversary to be celebrated appropriately and be well organised
because many people risked or gave their lives in that important episode and we will want to honour them appropriately. I shall ensure that those responsible listen to his point.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Will the Leader of the House find time to get an answer for Members of Parliament on the Government's exact definition of the word "sustainable", as it is so incontinently applied across much of their policy, especially in respect of planning? There are many large planning applications in the south-east, south-west and elsewhere in England where sustainable development is much trumpeted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but no one can provide an exact definition of sustainable. Will the Leader of the House bend his considerable intellect to get us the definitive answer on what sustainability means in the Government's rather erratic lexicon?
Mr. Hain: I regard the hon. Gentleman as one of the most sustainable Members of the House and long may he remain so. I shall certainly consult the scribes to see whether I can get him a sensible definition.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): In the next few days, the Energy Minister will visit Japan. Part of the purpose of the visit is to persuade the Japanese Government once again to buy plutonium fuel from the United Kingdom. Given that there is an industrial dispute at Sellafield, that Sizewell B is out of action and that both our nuclear generators are technically bankrupt, is it sensible to ship plutonium from one end of the planet to the other? Does my right hon. Friend think that we should have a full debate on the international plutonium trade?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way and I will take note of his request. When I was Energy Minister, for all of five months, I had to grapple with those issues and am well aware of the concerns that he expresses.
Sir Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): Does the Leader of the House acknowledge the importance of debating the fishing industry before the Fisheries Council meets towards the end of the year, because the possible closure of the North sea fishery is on the agenda? I anticipate that he will have more difficulty arranging that this year because the Queen's Speech is slightly later than usual and there is always pressure on debating time on the Floor of the House after that. Will he assure me, however, that by hook or by crook—by using some device—he will give those of us with fishing interests a proper opportunity to ensure that Ministers are fully briefed from the Floor of the House before the Fisheries Council meets?
Mr. Hain: This is obviously an important matter to the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues with fishing interests. His views are well founded. As he knows, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is well practised at keeping the House informed and comes before the House at every appropriate opportunity, as do the Ministers of State.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): A fortnight ago, I raised large-scale voluntary transfers with my right hon. Friend and, in particular, the situation in my district council area of Stroud. Will he go back again to our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to gauge what is happening with the ballots and to make it clear that it is in no way helpful for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to get drawn into the decision-making process? The decision should be an entirely local one and the ODPM should have no say in whether it is right or wrong for a local authority to get rid of its council stock.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |