| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: I know of my hon. Friend's views on sitting hours, and she takes a strongly held position on the matter. She is free to continue to argue it, but it is an entirely separate matter from the position of catering staff. I share her concern about that, and I am sure that she will want to address her concerns to the Chairman of the Catering Committee, which is responsible for those matters. She is absolutely right, though she reluctantly conceded it, that income from catering in the House has increased since the change of sitting times. The relationship between the reformed hours and catering provision is not straightforward.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): As someone hoping to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye in Westminster Hall next Tuesday afternoon and someone who initiated a debate on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall 15 months ago, I put it to the Leader of the House—he has an outstanding record of opposing the Mugabe regime—that many of us are deeply disappointed that, with the deteriorating position in Zimbabwe, we have not had a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House. Westminster Hall is not sufficient to debate such a serious matter. I know that the Leader of
the House agrees with me, so can he persuade the Foreign Secretary to initiate in Government time a full-day debate on Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary—he and I have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman's office, partly as a result of the quite proper questions that he has recently put to us—is carefully considering the need for a debate in the Chamber. We all share—the right hon. Gentleman and I especially—an absolute revulsion for the state to which Zimbabwe has descended under Robert Mugabe's tyranny. Frankly, with rape and terror camps being established, where people are trained to wage terror on the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe, it seems to me that Robert Mugabe is rapidly catching up Idi Amin as the Hitler of Africa.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North) (Lab): I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to last Session's early-day motion 63:
[That this House expresses its sadness that more than 1,748 members of Her Majesty's armed forces have lost their lives through non-natural causes since 1990 and sends condolences to all their families; notes that almost 200 deaths have been caused by discharge of firearms and further that some 200 are described as self-inflicted; notes the growing public perception that the Ministry of Defence response to these deaths is inadequate and distressing to the bereaved; applauds the courage and determination of the friends and families of Scan Benton, James Collinson, Geoff Gray and Cheryl James who died at Deepcut barracks in Surrey; and of Paul Cochrane, Ross Collins, Richard Donkin, Tony Green, Dale Little, Aled Martin Jones, Alfie Manship, Gary Riches, Richard Robertson, Alan Sharpies, David Shipley and Christopher Young who have subsequently come forward to make public their own grievances and frustrations at the hands of the military authorities; believes the Army has a duty of care and protection towards all personnel, particularly young soldiers; believes that the culture of secrecy surrounding the varied cause of these deaths must give way to greater transparency; believes that the environment in which these deaths continue to occur and the absence of a system for prompt, effective and independent investigation of deaths has led to a breakdown in public confidence that can only be restored through a full and independent public inquiry; and urges the Government to establish a tribunal of inquiry without delay.]
The corresponding provision this Session is early-day motion 78.
They deal with the demand by more than 200 hon. Members for a public inquiry into the Deepcut and other deaths.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Surrey police today issued its report, urging a broader investigation and inquiry. In its statement, however, the Ministry of Defence, while agreeing to make an early statement before the House, has not indicated the nature of the inquiry. Will the Leader of the House draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence the fact that, when asked what a broader inquiry was, the Surrey police replied that it was one
- "independent of Government and Army, transparent, with powers to call for people and papers, held in public and intimately involving the families of the victims."?
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): I reassure the Leader of the House that previous pilots on all-postal ballots in the borough of Trafford in my constituency have resulted in far more Conservative votes than Labour votes. We are not concerned about the electoral implications for the Conservative party of moving to all-postal ballots. However, we are concerned that it is impossible to guarantee the confidentiality of such ballots, and to ensure that intimidation will not take place. May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter? Will he look again at the advice from the Electoral Commission, and will the Government consider accepting the wise counsel on this issue from another place?
Mr. Hain: I have two points to make, although the hon. Gentleman can raise many of these matters in the debate on Monday—
Mr. Heald: Don't worry—he will.
Mr. Hain: The shadow Leader of the House says that the hon. Gentleman will do just that. The principles are clear. First, increased turnout is in all our interests. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that postal voting caused the number of Conservative voters to rise. Although that is bitterly disappointing to me, it is a consequence of increasing turnout. We all have a vested interest in securing high turnout, in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside, as well as in the east midlands and the north-east.
Secondly, if the enterprise were as risky as has been claimed, why has the Electoral Commission recommended that two regions go ahead with postal voting? If there were problems of abuse, lack of confidentiality and corruption, the commission would have said that no pilot schemes should be held. It has not said that, however: it has said that we should go ahead with two schemes and that if we judge that there are sufficient resources and so on to enable four pilots to be held, we should go ahead and hold those as well. That is exactly what it said.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): We celebrated St. David's day this week, and it is appropriate that hon. Members walk beneath his portrait as we come into the Chamber from the Central Lobby. Also this week, the Western Mail announced that the greatest Welshman ever was Nye Bevan, the hero of public services. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate in the near
future on the valuable role played by public sector workers? If the Opposition came to power, those workers would come under attack the very next day, and their P45s would be in the post.
Mr. Hain: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Aneurin Bevan on winning the race to be Wales's outstanding hero. He was the runaway winner, which is marvellous. As my hon. Friend noted, Bevan introduced the national health service, which has been a gift to all of us. Under Labour, more nurses, doctors and consultants have been recruited. We are beginning to put the NHS back on its feet again, after years and years of cuts. If the Conservatives were to come to office, there would be more cuts in the NHS, and a reduction in the number of nurses.
Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle) (LD): Given the lack of public confidence in the network reinvention process for post office closures, will the Leader of the House read, and act in support of, early-day motion 725?
[That this House calls on the Department for Trade and Industry to halt forthwith the Network Reinvention Programme of post office closures while an investigation is carried out into flaws in the notification, consultation and decision-making process, which led to inaccurate information being presented to the public and to consultees, including honourable Members and at least one metropolitan borough council, and which have led furthermore to a decision to close a post office being made on the same day that honourable Members and a council were notified in writing by Post Office Limited's Head of the North West that more time was being taken to review that closure, and which have led to the designation of a rural post office as urban without reference to clear criteria including those in the Performance and Innovation Unit report of 2000; notes that Royal Mail now recognise inadequacies in the process and that subsequent closure consultations will be modified but that current consultations will not be changed; regrets the failure of the Post Office and Postwatch to use clear and unambiguous language in their replies to honourable and Right honourable Members; and further regrets the failure of Post Office Limited to transmit a clear, strategic, coherent vision of the future of the Post Office at the heart of local communities.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |