§ Mr. Peter Hain (Neath)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have the Government asked for time to make a statement on Welsh national heritage? The Secretary of State for Wales is discussing with the Countryside Council for Wales proposals to privatise more than 50 nature reserves and savagely to cut wildlife protection. Those crackpot proposals are bitterly resented in Wales. Surely the Secretary of State should come before the House, to consult right hon. and hon. Members before he proceeds.
§ Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As far as one can tell from the documents, the proposals will also breach Britain's international obligations under the biodiversity convention signed by the Prime Minister as part of the Rio treaty just after the previous general election and, worse, under the European Union's habitats and species directive, which passed through the House just before it rose for the summer recess last July. The document of which we have had sighs: appears to have passed through the Countryside Commission for Wales on the instructions of the Secretary of State, so it would seem appropriate for him to make a statement on how Britain is to meet its international obligations.
§ Madam SpeakerMembers on the Treasury Bench will have heard the remarks of both hon. Gentlemen, but I have not received any intimation from the Government that they will seek to make a statement.
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be most grateful if you could assist me with a matter on which the Clerks have been extremely helpful, but an element of doubt remains. A number of hon. Members would like to raise the issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on the Adjournment of the House, so that we may press the Government for a statement. The problem is that although debate on the individual case would be in order, we are advised that the legal position that creates doubt for the 19,000 soldiers still serving in Ulster could go beyond the rules of order, because hon. Members are not supposed to press for legal changes in an Adjournment debate. If an hon. Member were to raise in an Adjournment debate the specific, narrow issue of Private Clegg—which would be in order—would it be in order also to point out in general terms the gaps in the law that led to Private Clegg's problem and how they might be put right?
§ Madam SpeakerThe matter can be raised in general terms, provided that the House does not enter into debate on the decision of the Law Lords. I would hear such an Adjournment debate on that basis.