| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House find a parliamentary occasion on which to celebrate widening the European Union on 1 May? Perhaps it could coincide with the state visit of President Kwásniewski. We could thereby bring some balance to the current debate by reminding hon. Members that in the darkest days of 1940, of the few pilots who fought above this place, 13 per cent. were Poles and Czechs, and 17 per cent. of the kills were by Poles and Czechs. If that was so pivotal, not only for us but for democracy, the men who made the blood sacrifice above here won for their grandchildren the right to participate in the free club of the European Union and the free market. It ill behoves us to say for 50 years, "Look how wonderful things are this side of the curtain, with the market economy and capitalism", but when asked, "Can we join?", to reply, "Hang on. Not so fast. Hold back." That is happening. We need to remind The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph that, but for those people who fought in 1940, there would be no The Sun, The Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail.
Mr. Hain: I say, "Hear, hear" to that. I hope that those newspapers' editors will bear my hon. Friend's
comments in mind. He is right that it is a historic occasion—we are witnessing the reunification of Europe, which was so bitterly divided by the second world war and the cold war. All our friends—the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians and many others from the 10 accession countries—are joining us in the rest of Europe where they should always have been allowed, tasting the freedom and smelling the free air rather than being trapped in the shackles of the Soviet empire.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): Following the assertion of the Leader of the House a few moments ago that the Government are the most accountable in living memory, will he provide a debate on ministerial standards? In the past few days, I have received a response from a Home Office Minister to a letter that I wrote on 8 January 2003. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable for Ministers to take such a slap-happy approach to correspondence with Members of Parliament of any party? Will he emphasise to Ministers that that is not only unacceptable but that we have a right to insist on timely and informative responses from them on all occasions?
Mr. Hain: Of course, the hon. Gentleman, like every other hon. Member, has that right. I know nothing of the case that he raises although I understand that it came up in a debate in Westminster Hall. The Government have a pretty good record of responding promptly to Members' letters and questions. If the odd slip-up occurs, it clearly should not happen.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): May we debate early-day motion 625?
[That this House expects the proposed war on Afghan drugs to replicate the anarchy that similar action caused in Colombia; recalls that destroying drug crops in Colombia has not cut production but has created a state of permanent civil war involving three armies, two of which are funded by drug money; notes that the reduction of 90 per cent, in poppy cultivation achieved by the Taliban has been reversed with this year's record crop; asserts that any future interruption in the supply of Afghan heroin will be immediately replaced by increases from Pakistan, Myanmar and Kazakhstan, leading to the bloody chaos of the Colombia-isation of a huge area of central Asia; and declares that the only practical way to reduce heroin use is by cutting demand.]
The perverse result of our invasion of Afghanistan is not a reduction of heroin poppy production but the biggest crop that it has ever had. Similarly, military action in Colombia has left that country in a state of anarchy and permanent civil war, with increases in drug production in Peru and Bolivia. Is not there a grave danger that, if we pursue our current policies in Afghanistan, and a reduction in production were achieved there, it would mean only an increase in growth in Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Myanmar? Is not there also a danger of that leading to a Colombia-isation of a large part of central Asia?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a serious point but I am sure that he would not suggest that our objective of a free Afghanistan with no drugs could have been achieved by allowing the Taliban to stay in control,
backed up, as they were, by al-Qaeda, rather than by action to liberate the Afghans. Serious problems always arise, as they have in Iraq, when one confronts a despotic regime and tries to rebuild a country, especially from the bottom upwards. That applies especially to Afghanistan, where there was no proper system of government.I cannot dispute my hon. Friend's point about poppy growing, but our aim is a democratic, free Afghanistan, which is also drugs fee.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): May I take the opportunity to thank the Leader of the House for the help that he gave those of us who asked a few weeks ago whether Her Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister would go to Normandy to attend the 60th anniversary of D-day? I ask him to work the same magic for 4 June—two days before the D-day events—when celebrations in Rome will mark its liberation. That was one of the culminating points of the Italian campaign, which cost 45,000 British, Commonwealth and allied lives. Would not it be a wonderful gesture if, on their way to Normandy, the Prime Minister and Her Majesty showed that the people who were fighting to free Europe, even a year before D-day, had not been forgotten?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made and I am grateful for his comments. I am not sure whether any magic was weaved on my part in respect of the decision, but the Prime Minister's office will have taken note of his comments and important point about 4 June.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Last Thursday, the trustees of the Lister-Petter plc pension fund in my constituency announced that they would start to wind up the pension fund. That is likely to result in workers, who have paid in for as long as 38 years, losing 90 per cent. of their pension provision. I sign up totally to the campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) is waging. He has been relentless in his support of Allied Steel and Wire workers. I stress to my right hon. Friend that the problem will not go away. Labour Back-Bench Members will continue to campaign until we consider not only what we should do for the future but retrospectively. It is unfair that those workers should be thrown on the scrap heap and have no future. Will he consider methods of drafting something that can be included in the Pensions Bill to ensure that we overcome that serious problem?
Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be brief supplementary questions if I am to call all hon. Members who wish to ask a question today.
Mr. Hain: I am troubled by my hon. Friend's comments. It sounds as though he has described what may tragically be another appalling case. The Pensions Bill will provide protection for the future, but he is right about the current predicament. That is why the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is continuing to explore every opportunity to deal with such cases in a way that does not expose the taxpayer to a literally limitless bill. That is where the problem lies.
Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle) (LD): Does the Leader of the House agree that reopening on 16 March the inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly will allow detailed answers to be sought to the questions that remain after the Hutton report? Will he allow a debate on them at a later date?
Mr. Hain: More questions have been asked and answered on that unhappy affair than on almost any other matter that I can think of.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): Would my right hon. Friend arrange for a wide-ranging debate to be held on the improved services to local communities that have resulted from the significant increases in funding to local councils up and down the country during the past few years? He will not be surprised to hear that when I go round my constituency, I find that people want more police officers on the beat, an improved environment and cleaner streets. Will he acknowledge that such a debate would give Conservative Members the opportunity to explain how their policies would produce significant cuts in the services that the public most value?
Mr. Hain: Yes, that would be a good opportunity, and if it is possible to organise that, we shall try to do so. That would allow us to contrast the different approaches of this Government and the Opposition to local government funding for the years ahead. Opposition policies would result in £2.5 billion worth of cuts in the first two years of a Conservative Government, were they to be elected. That would have a devastating effect on local government not only in Sheffield but right across England, Wales and Scotland. It is very important that the people of this country realise the choice before them.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): The Leader of the House is fond of boasting, as he did today, about Ministers who come to the House to answer questions, but he has neglected to say that when Ministers give answers, they are either inadequate or non-existent. Will he conduct an exhaustive search throughout the Government to try to find a Minister who gives adequate, straightforward answers to questions in this place? If he finds such a person—I shall be impressed if he can—will that person then conduct a seminar for other Ministers, with the Prime Minister present, so that we might have some hope in the future of getting answers of any kind from Ministers?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |