| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has an Opposition day coming up soon and there was a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall only recently. The truth is that this is another example of Conservative opportunism.
The declassifying of cannabis will be done in order to ensure that we do not devalue and discredit the message on hard drugs. It is very important that we persuade people, especially youngsters, to concentrate on avoiding the really hard drugs that they might be dragged into supporting if they were put in the same bracket as cannabis.
I thought the hon. Gentleman's question about snowfalls particularly impressive. As he knows, snow has been a periodic problem. We are continually trying to improve our rate of response to it, and will go on doing so.
Let me say something about a wider question. I know the hon. Gentleman will take it seriously, because he is concerned about these matters as well. I think it important that we respect each other's integrity in the whole conduct of politics, as we do in the House. Public and political debate, in the BBC and other broadcasting outlets or elsewhere in the media, must once more involve an honest clash of policies and politics rather than constant attempts to challenge each other's integrity.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): I agree with that, but may I return the Leader of the House to
arrangements for next week? Can he confirm information given yesterday by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, that the Government's response to the Committee's report "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessment" will be published early next week? That would enable Members to consider the information and recommendations before the Adjournment debate on the Hutton report. The right hon. Lady also said that the debate would be wide-ranging and need not confine itself to the narrow remit of Lord Hutton's inquiry, and I hope that the Leader of the House will agree to that.Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the point at issue is not just whether the so-called dodgy dossier was "sexed up", but the location of those threatening weapons of mass destruction on which the Government relied so much? Does he also accept that, as I said on behalf of my colleagues last week, the circumstances surrounding that wide-ranging debate are exceptional and it should therefore continue until at least 10 pm? He may now regret telling me last week that the only exceptional circumstances that he could envisage that might necessitate such an extension were those in which Members needed to go on holiday.
Mr. Tyler: Well, he can put that right now. I hope that he will now say that the circumstances are exceptional, because this is an extremely important issue.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned David Kay and the evidence that he has given in Washington. In the light of the undoubted failures of United States and United Kingdom intelligence—no one can deny that now—on the real nature of the threat that faced us from Saddam, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a case for a wider inquiry? The fact that Conservative Members swallowed those spurious threats and that dodgy dossier does not mean that the whole House should.
Mr. Hain: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on whether the report will be published next week. That is in the hands of the Committee.
Mr. Tyler: I was asking about the Government's response.
Mr. Hain: I am sorry. Obviously it is in everyone's interest to have the Government's response before the debate. I will let the hon. Gentleman know whether that will be possible. I agree that it is important for us to have all the background.
How wide or narrow the debate is will be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we as a Government are very confident—not just confident because we have come out of the detailed inquiry by Lord Hutton as we have, but confident about our whole policy on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Let me remind him of what David Kay actually told Congress recently, as opposed to some of the spin that has been put on it:
- "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that
- began in late 2002 . . . A clandestine network of laboratories . . . A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents . . . Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home . . . BW-applicable agents . . . work on ricin"
- "plans and advanced design work for long-range missiles"
- "systematic sanitisation of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work."
- "I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."
As to the handling of the debate, I have always said that we needed to await the report before announcing who would open and close the debate and the time allowed—which I have now announced. I do not think that a longer debate is necessary, but the Liberal Democrats will have an Adjournment debate soon and could choose that subject if they wish.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Instead of bothering with a day on the Hutton report, because it has all been said—the Tories do not like the report because it comes down in favour of the Government and against the BBC—will the Leader of the House use that day instead for a debate on the few pits remaining in Britain? Most of them—about 300 or 400—were closed between 1979 and 1997 but the few left need money. Does he accept that if it is possible for the Government to step in—as they did with Railtrack, Connex and the Jarvis contracts—to save lines, it would make sense to do the same for pits in danger, such as Hatfield and Selby? If private entrepreneurs such as Budge and others refuse to do anything to save jobs, the Government should do what they have done for the railways, take the pits over and make sure those jobs are saved.
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's passion, being myself a Member of Parliament who represents a coalfield community—which my hon. Friend was kind enough to visit some years ago. I share many of his sentiments and we will continue to do what we can to help a viable coal industry succeed. He will also understand, however, that tens of millions of pounds have recently been given in aid to pits across the country, including in constituencies in South Wales. Over the years, billions of pounds have been given to the coal industry. We must judge any further support against that background.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): May I take the Leader of the House back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), to which the right hon. Gentleman did not respond, concerning the composition of the Standing Committee on the Higher Education Bill? The right hon. Gentleman will remember the point of order that I raised with Mr. Speaker on the night of the Second Reading debate and
will have in mind page 693 of the 22nd edition of "Erskine May", which makes it plain that in nominating Standing Committee members, the Committee of Selection shall always ensure
- "in the case of bills which divide the House on cross-party lines, that the strength of opinion as expressed in any division at second reading is properly reflected".
Mr. Hain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly raises that point again, as I overlooked it when replying to the shadow Leader of the House. The Committee of Selection will want to consider that matter carefully but the rules are clear. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Division was principally if not exclusively on party grounds, but his point will be borne in mind.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): I offer to help the Government out on the Committee considering the top-up fees, so I hope that will be taken into account.
Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 445?
[That this House believes that the supreme sacrifice of British servicemen and women who are killed in the line of duty, in war, peacekeeping or as a result of terrorism, should be acknowledged through a posthumous medal similar to the United States Purple Heart or the Memorial Cross of Canada and New Zealand, which can be presented to the next of kin and worn with pride on Remembrance Day; accepts that suitable criteria for such a medal need to be carefully defined and that this is best done by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with The Royal British Legion and forces' associations; and urges the Ministry of Defence to accept the policy and instigate such discussions.]
It deals with posthumous medals for British servicemen and women who have been killed in the line of duty during wars or peace-making activities or as a result of terrorism and asks that such medals should be in line with the US purple heart and the memorial cross in Canada and New Zealand. It has cross-party—and left, right and centre—support, so could we have a statement, which would compensate for the fact that I had to pull a question on the matter for Monday's Defence questions because I had duties on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |