---

Mr. Hain: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, in the spirit in which she said it. It is a vital measure, for the reasons that I described earlier, and I hope to have good news as soon as possible after the House returns. Clearly, the Government are anxious to get the Bill on to the statute book, providing protection for women in particular who have had such a dreadful time for far too long.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the relatively positive answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) in respect of the Procedure Committee's report on Sessional Orders and resolutions, which I am sure—I hope that I am in order in saying this—could have had a bearing, had it been dealt with already, on what unfortunately occurred in Parliament square yesterday. Having said that, will the Leader of the House give a firm commitment that the Government will make proper proposals when this matter is debated, so that what I saw as the horrific, excessive action of the police yesterday, against generally law-abiding citizens seeking to protest peacefully in Parliament square, does not occur again? Our report can put that right.

Mr. Hain: I can, as I already have done, give a firm commitment that proposals will come forward. On the general principle that the hon. Gentleman expressed, if those protesters had been miners 20 years ago, I bet that he would not have been saying what he has just said.

Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North) (Lab): I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the sterling work done by the magistracy up and down the country in delivering the justice system. May we have an early debate on the selection procedure, however, as it is imperative that we maintain impartiality and non-discrimination? We have discovered that one of the magistrates in Bradford, William Stanley, is a member of the British National party.

Mr. Hain: Clearly, my hon. Friend has drawn a worrying episode to the House's attention. I do not think that members of the British National party are fit to stand in any public position, as their racism and neo-Nazism makes them unfit for office. This issue, however, is a matter for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, and he will have noted my hon. Friend's point.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): Reverting to the reply that the Leader of the House gave
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1461
 
to my hon. Friends, the report of the Procedure Committee was published on 5 November last year. Since that time, a number of my hon. Friends and I have been pressing for a debate. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that not only will we discuss the matter but that it will be possible for the House to come to a conclusion on the Sessional Orders, so that they can be implemented at the beginning of the next Session at the end of November?

Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman has quite properly pressed me on this issue repeatedly—there is no question but that there has been too long a delay. It is a complex issue, however. It is not just a question of Sessional Orders but of what Home Office legislation might be required. I have explained that the Home Secretary is consulting on that and is keen to act; indeed, I discussed it with him this morning. There is also the wider question of the environment of the Palace of Westminster—the wider Government and Whitehall environment, with its security implications, and the implications for the House—although the security of the House and the Palace is imperative in its own right. That is why we have not rushed into this, but yesterday's events underline the importance of resolving it.

Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab): In the light of the statement made within the hour by the Ministry of Defence to end the major repair and overhaul of the RAF's front-line fleet in south Wales after 50 years, will he find time for an emergency debate on the implications of this decision? Giving this kind of work back to the Royal Air Force is wrong in principle and practice. It makes a mockery of the Government's smart procurement policy. It is bad for the military, bad for the British taxpayer, and it will devastate the south Wales economy.

Mr. Hain: I cannot accept that it will devastate the south Wales economy, for reasons that I am about to explain. I take to heart, however, the way in which my hon. Friend has championed, as its local Member of Parliament, the future of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency at St. Athan. He has fought harder than anyone else could have fought for it, and I believe that it still has a future, as do Defence Ministers. It will be an opportunity to attract further investment to Wales. Wales, particularly that part of south-east Wales, has a fantastic environment for defence-related industries. High-quality companies are there, including Cogent, OshKosh, General Dynamics and Axiom, and the MOD directly employs some 5,500 service and civilian personnel in Wales. We are very concerned about this matter, and Ministers will understand his point.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Will the Leader of the House make time available for a short debate or a statement to allow the Government to explain why they continue to block the award of medals by the Russian Government to UK seamen who served in the Russian convoys during the second world war? Those men risked their lives. They are regarded in ports such as Murmansk, to this day, as heroes. There is no
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1462
 
appropriate British decoration, which is bad enough, but the fact that the Government continue to block the award of a Russian decoration is unforgivable.

Mr. Hain: I understand the passion with which the hon. Gentleman makes his point. Any servicemen who perform heroic roles need recognition, and I shall make sure that the Secretary of State takes careful note of his representation.

Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): You, Mr. Speaker, made a ruling at the beginning of today that understandably makes it difficult for us to discuss what went on yesterday. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has any idea when, after all the reviews have concluded, we shall sensibly have a public debate on how to move forward. We had a debate when the screen was installed, and clearly, there are worries about being too open in relation to sensitive areas. We must have some mechanism, however, by which Members of the House, who have been directly affected, can have a say and debate these issues sensibly.

Mr. Hain: Clearly, I am aware of your rulings on this matter, Mr. Speaker, which I support. Equally, however, my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House will wish to express their views, which you have invited over the coming weeks. We must reflect on that, but I assure my hon. Friend that the House of Commons Commission, under your chairmanship, has already had an interim report from the security services and the Metropolitan police. We expect the final report within a matter of weeks, which will take into account what happened yesterday. There is urgent need for reform, of which you, Mr. Speaker, being responsible for security, are very conscious, as we all are, and as I am of all the views expressed to me overnight.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): May we have a statement from the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not on the importance of the correct work-life balance, which might be rather unconvincing, but on why a split is necessary between the roles of Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? How is it that the excellent Lord Tebbit managed to hold that position when he was chairman of the Conservative party, with an electoral role, and was paid only about £2,000 a year, because of the minimal nature of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's duties, while this Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be paid at the full Cabinet Minister's rate?

Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the last Conservative Government, some Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster, such as Lord Hunt, were paid the full Cabinet salary, because they were not party chairmen. The Labour party chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is being paid by the Labour party, because his duties are political in respect of his party post, whereas the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), will be paid a salary from the public purse because he will have a cross-Government role in the co-ordination of Government policy.       

My right hon. Friend will be responsible for the work of the strategy unit and the policy directorate, and will
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1463
 
sit on a number of Cabinet Committees. An announcement about that will be made to Parliament in the normal way. He will also be responsible for Duchy business.

In response to a point raised with me last time, let me add that my right hon. Friend will answer parliamentary questions on his Government responsibilities in the House, and will deal with correspondence from Members on those issues in the usual way.

---