| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): In a reflective interview with The Times last Saturday, entitled "Perma-tan Hain sees light at end of dark days", the Leader of the House expressed bitter disappointment that No. 10 had scuppered his party's policy on the House of Lords. In relation to the business of the House, he is quoted as saying:
- "But I think there is a head of steam on this which will enable us to look forward."
Mr. Hain: As for the perma-tan, I am afraid I cannot do anything about that, but I shall pass on my African roots and see if that helps the right hon. Gentleman.
With regard to No. 10 scuppering policy, that was the spin by The Times on the situation. The truth is that, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, I voted for a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber, and then subsequently down the steps until the whole issue fell.
However, the House did not agree on any option. I would like to see— and the Government are consulting upon, as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has made perfectly clear—a later stage of reform. In the meantime, we have an absolutely crucial job to do, which is to get rid of the hereditary peers from the second Chamber and have an independent system of appointment.I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are now in a position in which we have fewer votes in the House of Lords than Cross-Benchers—
Mr. Hain: We also have fewer votes than the Conservatives.
The right hon. Gentleman says "Good", because he wants to use an unelected Chamber to defeat the policies of an elected House of Commons, acting on the mandate of a general election manifesto—and a landslide mandate at that.
What will be interesting in the whole debate is to see where the Conservative party is on this matter. The Conservatives in the Lords voted overwhelmingly for a fully appointed second Chamber, but the Conservative leadership in the Commons appears to support an elected element. There is an element of hypocrisy and opportunism here, but as the debate unfolds we shall find out more.
Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will know that this year we celebrate 10 years of the Fairtrade Mark, and we have a Fairtrade fortnight coming up, from 1 March to 14 March. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to let us discuss the very practical and important ways in which the Fairtrade Mark can help the poor countries of the third world?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work on this issue. It is important now that the House recognises Fairtrade goods. I should like to see them marketed and sold as widely as possible. The Government are strongly behind the whole Fairtrade movement and are pressing for trade justice. We have promoted and supported it in the World Trade Organisation negotiations, and we shall also continue to press within the European Union against protectionism by the EU.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): May we have an urgent debate on the question of safety at sea, given that the new fishing regulations mean that for boats caught on 15 days there is no allowance for force majeure, so that if a boat goes to help another boat it loses fishing time and if a boat heaves to in a storm it loses fishing time? Before every fishing debate we pay tribute to those who lose their lives in the most dangerous profession of all. We have never before passed legislation to jeopardise safety at sea. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate? Will be contact the appropriate Minister and have this situation changed?
Mr. Hain: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to fishermen, who, as he says, do a most dangerous job. We depend enormously upon them.
The hon. Gentleman has raised some very important issues, which I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to study very carefully before deciding how to proceed in respect of discussion in the House. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): Has the Modernisation Committee given any consideration to moving private Members' Bills to Tuesday evenings? That would make them much more accessible for those of us who have fairly active constituency engagements on a Friday.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which has been put to me in the extensive consultations that I am undertaking on the review that the Modernisation Committee will be conducting on the hours. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, are putting quite a strong argument to do precisely as she says, and have all of the Fridays as constituency days and deal with private Members' Bills on Tuesday evenings. That would meet some hon. Members' concerns about the matter.
I hope that over the coming months we can reach a consensus on the hours issue. I do not want to see the clock rolled back. On the other hand, I want the House to be in a position in which it is comfortable with the arrangements, rather than there being a deep division on the hours question. If we can find a way through this, and if people can talk to each other and—dare I say?—even negotiate with each other, I am confident we can deal with the problem.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): At Foreign Office questions, I asked about unrestricted immigration from the EU accession states after 1 May, and whether the Government still stood by their estimate of between 5,000 and 13,000 a year. In reply, the Minister for Europe ignored my question and launched into a rant about rancid hate campaigns—but since then the Prime Minister has announced a change of policy. Will the Leader of the House first, inform the Foreign Office about what No. 10 is now thinking on this matter, and secondly, organise an urgent debate, because it is getting very late in the day to make difficult and sensitive changes about entitlements to benefits before 1 May?
Mr. Hain: I appreciate the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed them very directly yesterday. Our decision on the whole matter must be within an overall policy of managed migration, keeping a firm control on illegal migration, wherever it is from, and illegal workers, while welcoming legal migrants, whom our economy needs, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise.
There are many safeguards in place already, including safeguards on benefit entitlement. We are looking at these matters afresh, to see how we can best protect our national interests, but in a way that allows key workers to be recruited to fill urgent skills gaps in the economy.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the recent report on unemployment published by the Library, which shows sharp falls in unemployment since 1997, and in the case of Alyn and Deeside, a fall of more than 36 per cent? Can he arrange for an urgent debate on unemployment, and in particular, contrast our record with the appalling record of the Conservative party?
Mr. Hain: That is an excellent idea. The truth is that not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, which I have had the privilege to visit on a number of occasions, including with him, but in the constituencies of every Member of the House, unemployment has fallen dramatically under this Government. Employment has risen, and the economy is now in a stronger state than it has been in for generations. That is the policy that we will continue to promote, and that is why we are confident of winning an election, whenever it comes.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): Can the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to explain to the House the policy on vetting overseas workers, particularly those entering the health field, in the light of the arrest this week of one at least in Belfast who has been linked with al-Qaeda?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, this matter is being closely studied and acted on by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the security authorities. It is a very important issue. Other Members have raised such issues in the past, which is why we are seeking to promote a policy that is tough on such matters, and that ensures that potential terrorists in particular are not taking advantage of our services.
Peter Bradley (The Wrekin) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on the significance in shaping opinion both inside and outside the House of the intelligence about the 45 minutes launch capacity? If so, we will be able to consider why, between the publication of the dossier and the Gilligan broadcast—an eight-month period—it was mentioned only once on the Floor of the House, why in 43,000 oral and written questions it was referred to only twice, and why in the eight-month period it was referred to by the national press only 109 times, since the Gilligan broadcast, whereas it has been mentioned thousands on thousands of times.
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the Gilligan broadcast was completely false, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday. He has made a very important point. In all the intelligence that I saw, the much broader picture, which has been repeatedly endorsed not just by successive Foreign Secretaries, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but by the Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader of the Opposition, is that Saddam Hussein, over the years, possessed weapons of mass destruction, posed a threat in terms of his capabilities, and had used those weapons against his own people in the Kurdish north and against the Iranians. In respect of the question of battlefield nuclear weapons and biological and chemical warfare, Members of the House will remember Halabja, where more than 5,000 people died and many more were injured and had their lives disfigured for ever by the use of precisely those kinds of weapons.
We should be careful before we say that one form of delivery system is not a problem but others pose an enormous threat. The truth is that Saddam was a menace to his people, a menace to the region and a menace to the world, and the fact that he has gone is good for all of us.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |