| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: As I said, I fully understand the deep concern felt about this issue, and I am doing my best to ensure that a foreign policy debate covering the middle east takes place before the recess.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): May I echo the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for fuller discussion in this House of the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998? I put it to the Leader of the House that the Prime Minister might be rather disappointed with today’s business announcement, given that yesterday he said the following about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
“He finally announced a domestic policy—his own Bill of Rights...Come on....I am happy to debate the right hon. Gentleman’s policies”.—[ Official Report, 28 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 254.]
When is the Prime Minister, or indeed the Leader of the House, going to provide time for a debate, which we earnestly want, on that Act—or is he too terrified about the mess that it is in?
Mr. Straw: We are providing the time: the 18th allotted day for the Opposition is in just 10 days’ time. The hon. Gentleman is a man of very great influence in his party—let us have a debate, in Opposition time, on the Human Rights Act.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. John MacDougall.
Mr. John MacDougall (Glenrothes) (Lab): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the last question—about the possibility of a debate on the Human Rights Act and its merits, or otherwise—was the one that I was going to ask. However, I also think it important to consider some of the claims that have been made publicly about a Bill of Rights without further consideration having been given to the wider legislative framework within which such a Bill would have to operate.
Mr. Straw: I am glad to know that my hon. Friend is supporting Opposition Members—some Opposition Members—in putting pressure on their Front Benchers to use their Opposition time sensibly. I have to say that they have squandered some Opposition days on the most eccentric subjects—
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): Such as what? Give us some examples.
Mr. Straw: Such subjects certainly would not—and did not when we were in opposition— rank in my order of suitable subjects for debate on Supply days.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): As we approach the anniversary of 7/7, may we have a debate in Government time on a subject that I know is dear to the heart of the Leader of the House—how we can build a secure and tolerant multi-ethnic society? The need for a review of Government policy is urgent. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that a recent freedom of information inquiry, which was passed to me, reveals that the Government have given a grant of £150,000 to the Muslim Council of Britain. He may not be aware, however, that its new chairman, Dr. Muhammed Abdul Bari, recently invited to Britain a Saudi cleric who called Jews “pigs and monkeys”, and who also said that Hindus were idol worshippers to whom it would be wrong to talk sweetly. Dr. Bari was also involved in inviting a Bangladeshi cleric who has called for American troops to return from Iraq in coffins if they do not convert to Islam. May we have an opportunity to examine where Ministers have gone wrong in tackling extremism?
Mr. Straw: I of course wholly deplore the remarks attributed to those two clerics, as does the whole House. That said, I defend the Government’s decision to provide some modest financial aid to the Muslim Council of Britain. I, as Home Secretary, was the Minister who first did that, and I accept my responsibility in that regard. It is a sensible organisation that faces its own difficulties in trying to hold together a very diverse community that is itself under pressure. As for a debate on communities, there will be a debate on aspects of that issue. A debate is coming up—I am not being disingenuous in pointing this out—on the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report, which covers aspects of 7/7. That is an opportunity to raise some but not all of the matters that the hon. Gentleman referred to.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): The Leader of the House will have heard yesterday’s exchanges at Prime Minister’s Question Time on Trident and its possible replacement, and on the legality of replacement within the terms of the non-proliferation treaty. Is the Leader of the House in a position to tell us when the relevant Select Committee reports will be available, and when the Government will make a statement on the cost and legality of replacing Trident, and on their strategy for fulfilling our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty? When, moreover, will there be a vote in this House, on a clear substantive motion, on whether we are to continue down the nuclear armament road?
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): That will be on an Opposition day.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that such a debate will be on an Opposition day. No, it will not; it will be on a Government motion. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that there is no issue of legality. I am happy to give him a seminar outside this Chamber—or inside it—on our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, but of the five nuclear weapon states that are under that treaty, we are the one that has made the most progress in meeting our obligations. We have reduced our nuclear warhead systems from three to one. I led for the British Government at last May’s revision conference, which sought to get an international consensus in order to make further progress. However, we were thwarted by other member states.
There will be a debate on this issue. As I told the House last week, I cannot anticipate at this stage the most appropriate form for that debate, but it will be one that shows proper respect for the House. My hon. Friend will excuse me if I remind him that he, as well as I, stood on Labour’s manifesto at the last election, which said:
“We are...committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent”.
Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): Given the unsustainability of the imbalance of representation between England and Scotland and the worrying democratic deficit that that creates, may we have an urgent debate on the future shape of the constitutional settlement currently in place between these two great countries?
Mr. Straw: We have had plenty of debates on that issue. I shall just say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he and his party—which, as I reminded the House last week, was once called the Conservative and Unionist party—need to be extremely careful in pursuing the populist but wrong-headed line of suggesting that there is a contradiction between devolution to Scotland and the integrity of the Union. The second point that he needs to be aware of is that English MPs, of whom I am one, have overwhelming power over the Scottish Parliament in respect of one thing that is fundamental to all its operations: the allocation of money to it.
Ms
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, North) (Lab): May I
follow on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne
Valley (Kali Mountford)
and ask for a debate in Government time on carers and the White
Paper’s good recommendations on pensions? Carers were rather
sidelined during this week’s pensions debate, and in fact we
have a good strong message for
carers.
Mr. Straw: I certainly understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I hope that there might be an opportunity to pursue this matter before the recess in Westminster Hall or in an Adjournment debate, and after the recess, on the Floor of the House.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join me in condemning the sickening hate mail received by Scottish tennis ace Andy Murray simply because he favours one football team over another. Do we not need a statement to remind fans, the media, commentators and pundits that football is just a game? Good-natured rivalry is what makes it so special around the world, so should we not make an appeal to stop all the cajoling and browbeating about who should support whom?
Mr. Straw: Everyone needs a sense of proportion about football. Bill Shankly famously said that some people believed that football was a matter of life and death, but that in fact it was much more important than that.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that we might get cross-party support to try to change the ridiculously undemocratic system of Orders in Council? This is an urgent matter. Yesterday afternoon, the whole of the Northern Ireland education system was changed radically—and in my view, detrimentally—by the vote of a Committee. No amendments were allowed, and no costings were brought forward. That is outrageous. The Order in Council procedure will apply until the Assembly returns, and it must be changed.
Mr. Straw: I shall certainly pursue those concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but at the end of her question my hon. Friend acknowledged that the fundamental problem is that the Assembly has been suspended. If it had not been, the matter to which she refers would be one for the democratic representatives in Northern Ireland.
Mr.
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): May we have an
urgent and early debate on our country’s chaotic immigration
system? Yesterday, the Minister for Local Government, who has
responsibility for community cohesion, said that of course we needed to
debate it, and two examples from my constituency prove that. In the
first, a person who has applied for indefinite leave to remain received
a letter from the Home Office saying that his name appeared on the UN
list of individuals belonging to or associated with the al-Qaeda
organisation, but then apologised for “any delay or
anxiety” caused by consideration of his
application. My other constituent works for the
European Bank for Research and Development, and is
one of thousands of other Bulgarian nationals here on
business visas who have been asked to produce 16 sets of additional
documents within 28 days in order to prolong their stay. Surely our
priorities are wrong if we are apologising to alleged al-Qaeda members
yet harassing people with rare skills who are doing important jobs in
this country in sectors such as international
development?
Mr. Straw: I cannot comment on those individual cases, save to say that Bulgaria is one of those countries whose nationals need work permits in Britain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members would be the first to complain if we did not conduct proper checks of people seeking work permits.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 2456, in my name?
[That this House notes with concern that representatives of Overseas Territories based in the UK are not invited to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in London on Remembrance Sunday; recognises the huge contribution made by Overseas Territories to supporting the UK military both during war time and during peace time and the number of lives lost whilst serving on behalf of British forces; pays tribute to the residents of the UK's Overseas Territories for their loyalty to the British Crown; and calls upon the Government to allow one representative from an overseas territory to lay a wreath on behalf of all the Overseas Territories at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday.]
It is supported by hon. Members of all parties, and deals with the recognition of overseas territories. It proposes allowing representatives from those territories to place wreaths at the Cenotaph, whereas at present, that is done on their behalf by a Minister. It is absurd that London representatives of those territories are not allowed to recognise their war dead. Those representatives, in rotation, should be allowed to place wreaths at the Cenotaph themselves.
Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend on raising this important issue. I shall pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and to the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the Cenotaph ceremony.
John Bercow: Can we have a statement next week from the Home Secretary about his intended treatment of Rwandan genocide suspects? A number of such individuals currently reside in the UK, and at least one has been granted indefinite leave to remain. A statement by the Home Secretary would enable him to make clear to the House whether he intends to deal with such people by extradition or by domestic prosecution. In particular, he would be able to underline the important point that asylum should be granted to people fleeing persecution, and not to those seeking to evade responsibility for their suspected persecution of others.
Mr.
Straw: I do not think that a statement is necessary. I
cannot comment on the cases to which the
hon. Gentleman refers, as I do not have the facts. However, the fact
that people have been granted asylum is not a bar to their being
extradited. Article 1F of the 1951 refugee convention provides that
asylum status can be withdrawn if there is evidence that the person
involved has committed a serious crime—which, plainly, genocide
is.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 2447.
[That this House calls for a Government-led detailed inquiry into the pricing policies of the private utility companies to ensure that the consumer can make informed decisions on the provider and that the process for changing provider is simplified, which should create a truly transparent and competitive market.]
The motion has cross-party support, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw it to the attention of his Cabinet colleagues. Does he agree that it is wrong that energy companies are allowed to make significant price increases that have a devastating effect on all our communities?
Mr. Straw: I agree that prices for energy and other utilities have risen very significantly. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I shall certainly raise them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): I commend the Leader of the House for adding, in a speech outside the House, to the debate on party political funding and on the democratic deficit illustrated by very low election turnouts. Does he agree that there needs to be a debate in the House on the matter quite soon? That would enable those of us with doubts about parts of his policy to cross-examine him about them. I am referring to the fact that trade unions are excluded from funding restrictions, yet the restrictions apply to political parties outside election times. That policy seems to benefit the Government, whichever party is power.
Mr. Straw: Of course there should be a debate on party funding. Whether it will be held before we get the report from Sir Hayden Phillips is a matter for consideration, but I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Meanwhile, I invite him to read the chapter on donations in the Neill committee report published in 1998.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West) (Lab): May I offer an additional reason for a debate on the middle east? Other hon. Members have mentioned the high-profile issues, but every day the Israeli Government continue to annexe Palestinian land and expel Palestinians from Jerusalem. Effectively, Israel is closing off the possibility of a two-state solution in the area.
Mr. Straw: I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concern and great knowledge of these matters. As I have said to other hon. Members today, I understand that concern and want there to be a debate, and I am doing my best to ensure that there will be one.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): I ask the Leader of the House, for the third time in six weeks, when he will put on the Order Paper a motion to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to meet in public. Last time he said:
“we must not embarrass ourselves by setting up systems that subsequently fall into disrepute”.—[ Official Report, 8 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 414.]
There is nothing more embarrassing than the idea of that critically important Committee meeting in secret. Nothing would do it more good than the fresh air of public scrutiny.
Mr. Straw: That is one point of view.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): It is a good one.
Mr. Straw: Well, that depends. The other point of view has to do with the Committee’s effectiveness in scrutinising documents that have otherwise not yet been made public.
John Bercow: Yours suffers from the disadvantage of being wrong.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that I suffer from the disadvantage of being wrong—but that is often the case. However, I do not think that I am wrong on this occasion.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |