---

Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been anxious to ensure that life genuinely means life for the most serious murders and other crimes. He has introduced changes in the tariff arrangements and the sentencing procedures to ensure that the seriousness of crimes is taken into account by the courts. I agree that the case he mentions is appalling, and my right hon. Friend is taking a close interest in it.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): May we have a debate on the lessons to be learned from last week's elections?

Mr. Forth: Twenty-two per cent.

Chris Bryant: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that, because 22 of the 25 seats in the Rhondda were held by Labour—I do not know what the problem was elsewhere.

May we look especially into the fact that many ordinary people who sought postal ballots were troubled that someone had to witness their voting? They would like to see a change in that system. Furthermore, could the local and European elections always be held on the same day in future, as that seems to be rather good for turnout?

Mr. Hain: I certainly agree with the points that my hon. Friend made. The result in the Rhondda was an example to us all, not least in Neath. There was a complete wipe-out of Plaid Cymru, which paid the price for the dreadful council it had run and the policies for which it had been responsible. I agree with his point about the witness procedure, which was included, I
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 924
 
think, at the insistence of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who wanted to make as much mess as they could of the postal voting system—they wanted to discredit it from the beginning. The witness statement made many voters feel that the privacy of their vote was in some way transgressed and I think that the Electoral Commission will want to look at that issue.

There is great merit in my hon. Friend's last point; when there are European elections, local elections should be held on the same day, so that people can vote just once. As we saw, turnout was up significantly. The results, if not brilliant for the Labour party, were brilliant for democracy.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): Can the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement to explain the logic behind why there will be referendums for regional assemblies before the House passes legislation, yet the Prime Minister is insistent that the House comes to its deliberations on the European constitution before the people will get a choice?

Mr. Hain: The situation is simple and I shall explain it to the hon. Gentleman. There are important precedents. When establishing a new body, such as assemblies for the three English regions, there is a vote on the principle, followed by the legislation to effect it. If the vote is no, the legislation is not proceeded with. That is exactly what we did in the case of Scotland and Wales and it makes sense, because an assembly is a new body—an entirely new institution.

What is at stake in the European constitutional treaty, however, is the amendment, reform and modernisation of several existing European treaties. There is a European Union; we are in it. We made that decision in a referendum under a Labour Government—denied by a Conservative Government—in 1975. As the legislation goes through, all the issues will be exposed, as will a lot of the Tory myths and downright lies about what the new constitutional treaty is about. The voters will come to see that it is a common-sense reform and modernisation, and the simplification of a tangled web of treaties into one text, so that everybody can see how the EU is structured and how it works. They will know, too, that the House of Commons for the very first time will be given a say on any new piece of European legislation. That is a big advance for democratic rights and for national sovereignty, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise it.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): May I return to the point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? It is important that we have an early statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on the timetable for the regional assembly referendums—when the orders will be made and so on. Does the Leader of the House think it right that we go ahead with all-postal voting in the regional assembly referendums in October when the Electoral Commission
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 925
 
will not publish its review of all-postal voting on 10 June until the previous month—September? The whole thing has concertinaed and we need to rethink the timetable.

Mr. Hain: If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend has bought a lot of the Tory and media myths.

Mr. Prentice: No, no.

Mr. Hain: I am sorry to have to say that to my hon. Friend but I am afraid it is true.

The timetable is clear. We are currently assessing the evidence about what happened last Thursday and in the preceding week or two, because votes were cast before Thursday in large, if not overwhelming, measure. The Government will also seek the advice of the Electoral Commission and there will be plenty of time to take that into account for the postal ballots. There is a difference in that situation, however: people will be asked to vote yes or no to a regional assembly. We hope they vote yes, but that situation is different from the two sets of elections with what many people found were rather complicated ballot papers.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): The Leader of the House may be aware of the ongoing discussions since July last year between the United States Administration and the United Kingdom Government about the renewal of a bilateral agreement on weapons of mass destruction programmes for both the US and the UK. May I commend a new report by the British American Security Information Council? Its conclusion states:

"The Labour Government has declined to set aside time for a full parliamentary debate and it has been parsimonious with the actualite of the agreement."

Does the Leader of the House agree that US-UK nuclear weapons collaboration under the mutual defence agreement is important and that it should be debated in full?

Mr. Hain: It has been going on for a very long time—many decades—so I do not see a case for an urgent debate, but the hon. Gentleman can apply for a debate in the normal way.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives, equally unattractive cousins, have racked up aggregated debts of £120 billion, which is more than 10 per cent. of gross domestic product and is off the Government balance sheet. Perhaps the largest such deal is the one to modernise and upgrade the tube network, whose present net value is £16 billion over the next 30 years and which provides returns to shareholders at the mouth-watering levels of 18 to 20 per cent. Has the Leader of the House seen the report published today by Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. Stripped of the accounting jargon with which I am relatively familiar, that report is excoriating in its criticism. It says, in effect, that the deal is prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequence to the taxpayers, travellers and train drivers of this land. When can we have a debate on the shambles and folly that is PFI?
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 926
 

Mr. Hain: There are many opportunities to debate those matters. The Government will obviously want to study the report carefully and the Secretary of State for Transport will want to note my hon. Friend's points, but he must acknowledge that through the PFI and the PPPs there has been a huge expansion in capital programmes under the Labour Government—

David Taylor: At a cost.

Mr. Hain: Of course. But the cost through public borrowing and public funding would have meant fewer opportunities to provide from public finance the many capital and public spending projects in which we have invested on a record basis.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet) (Con): May I return the Leader of the House to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay)? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that four weeks ago I asked for a debate on Iraq, especially in the light of the handover to the Interim Government on 30 June. As that date is only 13 days away and as he has already announced the business for the next fortnight, may I earnestly implore him seriously to consider holding a debate, certainly in the three weeks thereafter before we go down for the summer recess?

Mr. Hain: I will pay very serious attention to the hon. Gentleman's request. I am sympathetic to it, but it is a question of fitting it into the rest of the business—the need to get Royal Assent for Bills and so forth. However, the time is fast approaching when we should take stock of where we are going on Iraq and his point will be well noted.

---