| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a strong case. The fact that he has raised it again will no doubt impress the Deputy Prime Minister and I shall draw it to his attention.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): I thank the Leader of the House for his positive response to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on the preparations for the 60th anniversary of D-Day, the last big opportunity for veterans to remember everything that went before and to commemorate those who died. The right hon. Gentleman may be unaware of the fact that the Royal British Legion states in unusually strong language that the present preparations are "nothing less than insulting" to the veterans because they are so low key. In particular, it is anxious that this country should be represented at that commemoration event at the highest possible level, as the Americans will be. When he takes up the issue, will he emphasise that point?
Mr. Hain: I was not aware of that matter, but I shall certainly take it up because the interests and aspirations of the Royal British Legion need to be treated with the utmost seriousness, and they deserve proper reflection.
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): At a time when the nights are drawing in and it is getting darker, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate my constituents and many others who, in the past few days, have celebrated Diwali, the festival of light? Can he send a clear message to everyone in our many diverse communities that we in this country will continue to stand for inclusiveness, multiculturalism, tolerance and understanding between people of all faiths?
Mr. Hain: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was going to refer to "something of the night" and would be ruled firmly out of order. In fact, he made an important point that we should rejoice with the communities that celebrate Diwali. We salute, too, the fact that we live in a multicultural, multi-faith and multi-ethnic society, and are proud to do so because it, and especially the festival of light, enriches us.
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate, ideally in Government time, on the programme of post office closures? I received notification yesterday that two more post offices in my constituency, in Ashingdon and Hockley, have been earmarked for closure. Both closures will cause particular problems for my constituents, who will have to travel further for post office services. Many Members on both sides of the House are affected by the
issue, so can the Government provide time for a debate to try to drive home the point that it is of serious concern?
Mr. Hain: It is indeed serious for many communities, and it is quite proper for the hon. Gentleman to raise it. However, the phenomenon has being going on for decades; it is not particular to our Government, and is the outcome of many different factors. The hon. Gentleman has plenty of opportunity to raise his constituents' interests in the debates that are already taking place in Westminster Hall or, indeed, to apply for such a debate himself.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): Has my right hon. Friend seen press reports this week saying that the Government propose to abolish the Commission for Racial Equality and replace it with a single equality body? Would it not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on this important matter, bearing in mind the comments that my right hon. Friend has just made about a multicultural society? Can he arrange time for a debate on this important subject before the proposals are taken further?
Mr. Hain: I shall draw those comments to the Home Secretary's attention. As my hon. Friend is aware, the proposal for a new commission for equality and human rights was made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which called for an integrated institutional support for human rights and equality. That is the remit of the new body. I am sure that my hon. Friend's request for an early debate will be listened to most carefully. Of course, he has alternative avenues for securing a debate himself.
Pete Wishart (North Tayside): I am sure that I am not the only Member who continues to be heavily lobbied by pensioner organisations in their constituencies on the Government's plans to do away with the pension book and pay pensions directly into people's bank accounts. Of the 913,000 pensioners in Scotland, 15 per cent. still do not have a bank account, and 59 per cent. would prefer payment by pension book. Can we have an early debate to address my constituents' many fears and anxieties on the issue?
Mr. Hain: I know of the fears and anxieties, because I have heard them expressed by pensioners in my constituency, many of whom do not have bank accounts, could not operate one and have no intention of doing so. However, pensioners are still free to choose to retain the existing cash-based method rather than a bank account transfer. I encourage them to exercise that choice, and not be intimidated in any way by advice to the contrary. That is my message to them, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would echo it.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): May I remind the Leader of the House of the democratic decision that the House made about its hours of operation and the timetable, and urge him not to find parliamentary time to discuss them again? Is he aware of
the fact that although some hon. Members are dissatisfied by the decision, many others would be excessively dissatisfied if the issue were reopened?
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): The hon. Lady is always excessively dissatisfied.
Dr. Starkey: Opposition Members would know.
Hon. Members who supported the decision would be excessively annoyed if the issue were reopened and any attempt were made to return to the previous hours.
Mr. Hain: I am acutely aware of excessive feelings on all sides of the argument, both for and against the hours that were decided. I can reassure my hon. Friend that, as I have said before, the hours that we now enjoy were decided by the House for the rest of this Parliament. In due course, we will review the hours and make a decision about what happens in the next Parliament. That was the decision that the House made and I intend to stick to it. Meanwhile, I welcome representations from my hon. Friend and others about the way in which things could be improved. There are many associated issues. For example, I discovered the other day that the Smoking Room is being closed prematurely. Members who want to go for a drink or simply want to spend the evening there find themselves shut out, perhaps only an hour after the last vote. That does not seem reasonable, and I hope that such issues can be dealt with properly and the interests of hon. Members protected.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Can we have an urgent debate in Government time on standards of reading? Given that improved literacy is a central prerequisite of children's ability to fulfil their potential, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the teaching of reading there should be no place whatsoever for the absurd advice of those teacher-training academics Kimberley, Meek and Miller, who said that
- "within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out and children must learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts"?
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central): May I remind my right hon. Friend of the annual slaughter of many of our fellow citizens who are guilty of nothing more than going to their place of work? There is an overwhelming need for legislation on corporate manslaughter to bear down on those employers who are profligate with the
lives and safety of their employees. Given that there was a manifesto commitment some years ago, can we have a clear statement from the Leader of the House that such legislation will be included in the Queen's Speech? If not, can we have an early debate to tease out from the Government when that legislation will be introduced?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will obviously understand the standard reply that I have to give. I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but I am sympathetic to his point, which was well argued. I hope that it will be taken on board.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an article by Thomas Harding in The Daily Telegraph today, and ask him to reconsider his response to a request from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate in the House on the misunderstandings that have arisen over the decommissioning process? I should like clarification of the law that forbids General de Chastelain from revealing things. That law is doubtful, and has been used in the House to silence people. It will figure in the forthcoming election, especially as the general himself was a hostage to the IRA, and led to the debacle that Monday when a statement on decommissioning was not forthcoming.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |