Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 424: debated on Wednesday 15 September 2004

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Wednesday 15 September 2004

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

Prayers

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked

Miners' Compensation Monitoring Group

1.

When the Wales monitoring sub-group on compensatory payments for miners' respiratory diseases and vibration white finger last met; and what information on payments was provided to him at that meeting. [187919]

The Wales monitoring group met on Monday to discuss progress on miners' compensation claims. A total of £437 million has been paid to miners and their widows under the two compensation schemes. In my hon. Friend's constituency, £6.4 million has been paid for chest diseases and £1.9 million for vibration white finger. That is a total of £8.4 million in compensation.

I thank my hon. Friend for his sterling work in helping to ensure that miners and the widows and families of deceased miners receive all that they are due under the scheme. However, what unscrupulous advantage is being taken of the scheme by third parties, who take fees out of the compensation claims to the great disbenefit of miners and their families, who are entitled to that money?

There have been instances of lawyers seeking to take money from miners and their widows after successfully obtaining compensation. The Law Society takes such matters seriously and, as a result of Government intervention, lawyers have paid back £60,000 to miners and their widows. The bigger problem, to which my hon. Friend has referred, is claims farmers—companies such as Industrial Diseases Compensation Ltd. As I said in the House on 9 June, those people are nothing but parasites who prey on elderly and vulnerable people. My message to them today is the same as it was then: the money is not yours; give it back to the miners and their widows.

Although progress has been made on settling claims from miners and miners' families, there are still problems with surface workers who have worked in dusty and dangerous conditions, and miners who spent part of their working lives in small mines that were not covered by the National Coal Board. Will the Under-Secretary devote all his efforts to ensuring that those cases, too, are resolved?

The solicitors have supplied information to the Department of Trade and Industry in support of claims for surface workers, but officials at the DTI feel that they need more information, especially about lead claims, if the matter is to be progressed. I hope that it will go before the judge at the hearing in October. The matter was discussed in the Wales monitoring group earlier this week, and I am conscious of the concerns of hon. Members of all parties about the matter.

On small mines, solicitors have highlighted some of the difficulties in establishing the liability of an insurer of small and private mines. I have written to the Association of British Insurers, which has told me in writing that its members will continue to co-operate in every way to ensure that the claims are properly investigated and the compensation paid.

On the subject of third parties and parasites, will the Under-Secretary confirm that if the Liberals' policies to axe the DTI budget went ahead, there would be no money for compensation payments—

It has been estimated that, at the current rate of progress, the last case in the compensation scheme will not be settled until 2013—a full 15 years after the original judgment. Does the Minister believe that that is an acceptable timetable? Was the need for additional resources to speed up processing raised with him at the monitoring group meeting?

I recognise that that is a serious issue. The scheme closed at the end of March. So far, 25,000 claims have been settled in Wales but more than 92,000 have been registered in total. In the four months before the scheme closed, 30,000 new claimants came forward. I hope that the discussions that are continuing between the solicitors' claimants group and the DTI to ascertain whether matters can be speeded up are successful. If so, the matter will go before the judge and I hope that, subsequently, we will run a scheme under which miners will have the option of either obtaining a fast-track decision or continuing to pursue their claim under the longer process. We are conscious of the need to ensure that resources are given to tackle the matter.

Education Maintenance Allowance

2.

What recent discussions he has had with the Education Minister in the National Assembly for Wales about the education maintenance allowance. [187920]

We meet regularly.

I welcome the introduction of the education maintenance allowance in Wales to tackle the drop-out rate at 16 and boost the aspirations of young people who would otherwise never consider staying on at school or college.

Did the Secretary of State explain to the Education Minister how the people of Wales should understand that rather illogical position? On the one hand, the Government wish to bribe young people who are not motivated to remain in education to stay on at school through the payment of education maintenance allowance; on the other, they deter anybody but the richest children from going to university by introducing top-up fees, which may mean that students leave university with debts of perhaps £30,000. What is the logic of that?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman thinks it better for youngsters to leave school at the age of 16. The pilots have shown that the staying-on rate has been increased by up to 6 per cent., and I would have thought that he would welcome the possibility of achieving a more highly skilled, and therefore more competitive, society in Wales, and of giving those youngsters more opportunities. On student finance, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Tory policy announced recently will result in students being plunged into massive debt. Graduates on low earnings could end up with a debt of £60,000 as a result of having a £10,000 loan. That would be the consequence of that punitive Tory policy.

The figures show that there has been a decline of 1.3 per cent. in the number of university applications among under-21year-olds in Wales between last year and this year. Does the Minister accept that that is hardly a recommendation for his Government's student funding proposals for higher education? Crucially, will he give us a more direct answer than the one he gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) when he tried to explain away the evident contradiction involved in financially incentivising under-18-year-olds to stay on in education while charging over-18-year-olds tens of thousands of pounds to continue in higher education?

The truth is that our policy is to encourage 16 to 19-year-olds to stay on in education in schools or colleges. That is in the interest of Wales. Our higher education policy will bring back grants of up to £2,700, which will benefit many thousands of students in Wales and provide a big incentive for people to go to university. We will also put in place a fair system for people to repay loans and fees over their working lifetime if they can afford to, and if they are in work.

May I begin by paying tribute to Fusilier Stephen Jones, who lost his life in Iraq serving with the Royal Welch Fusiliers? I know that the Secretary of State will do everything he can to ensure that the Royal Welch Fusiliers' cap badge and traditions remain at this difficult time; they are doing a fantastic job. Our thoughts should be with the family of Fusilier Jones at this sad time.

Nearer to home, we support this education policy, but my concern is that the colleges will not be there for the students to attend. Why is Neath Port Talbot college predicting a budget deficit of £880,000?

Neath Port Talbot college has indeed hit a difficult time over the past year. However, it is now bringing its balances into line and moving forward, having made the necessary efficiency savings, which the new principal, Mark Darcy, is driving through with my support. The hon. Gentleman knows, however, that if his party were to come to power and he were to become Secretary of State for Wales, we would see massive cuts in education maintenance allowances and all the other provision and support that this Government have made for higher and further education students. That would be the consequence of the £1 billion cut in the Welsh budget planned by the Tories for the first two years of their term of office.

I suggest that the Secretary of State focuses on his own policies rather than making up ours. Will he tell the House why Coleg Gwent is predicting that it will end the year with a deficit that threatens more than 30 jobs?

Again, the efficiency savings being made by Coleg Gwent, some of which have been extremely painful, have been designed to bring the college's finances into balance. The truth is that further education is now getting record investment under Labour; the numbers of students in further education has been rising and the number of courses has been improving. We regard the role of FE colleges as essential and will continue to fund them generously, in contrast to the Tories, who plan to cut budgets right across the board.

Thirteen out of 25 educational institutions in Wales are in debt to the tune of £3.5 million, so the money is not getting through. Seventy-five per cent. of college incomes come from Education and Learning Wales. Does the Secretary of State support the changes to ELWa that Rhodri Morgan has just brought about?

I do. The decision to bring ELWa into a much more effective system of organisation was badly overdue, because it had been responsible for a number of failures. The improvements that both the First Minister and the Education Minister are introducing, in discussion with ELWa, will help to improve that situation. What the hon. Gentleman has to explain to the people of Wales, however, is how they would be short-changed under Tory plans to cut the Welsh budget by £1 billion in the first two years of a Conservative Government.

Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he just gave? He said that what was happening at Coleg Gwent relates to efficiency savings, but we all know that it involves sackings and the closure of two important departments—engineering and catering—in one of the most deprived communities in Wales, Blaenau Gwent.

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. He has spoken to me in detail about them and we have made representations in support. I want to see Gwent college continuing to provide a range of vocational opportunities, including in engineering, as will be the case. It is absolutely vital that whatever new plans the college management put in place provide for those much needed opportunities, which he rightly identifies.

Plaid Cymru welcomes the education maintenance allowance, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the young people of Wales on achieving such fantastic GCSE results, which put them at the threshold of further and higher education. Will he clarify what future those young people will have in 2006, both as regards top-up tuition fees and the changes in relation to A-levels and university entrance, which were announced in England yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills? This is a good opportunity to clarify what will happen in Wales to those young people now receiving this allowance.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman's party supports the Government's policy, in one respect at least, of paying up to £30 a week to encourage youngsters to stay on in school and further education in Wales. That will help us to overcome one of the lowest rates of participation among 16-year-olds in the entire industrialised world. In respect of the review being introduced by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on university admissions, a Welsh representative will be a member of the working party that takes that policy forward. The matter is out to consultation, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in seeking to achieve a much more sensible way for students leaving school to find an opportunity to go to university than the hectic last-minute procedures that necessarily apply at the moment.

Education Funding

3.

What discussions he has had with his National Assembly colleagues concerning the impact of the spending review on capital funding projects in education in Wales. [187921]

Under our Labour Government's spending review, Wales has had a generational step change in funding, and a huge investment in our future. The Assembly's budget will rise to almost £13.5 billion a year by 2007–08, and its capital budget will rise to almost £1.2 billion, massively enhancing the Assembly's ability to fund educational capital projects.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that such investment needs to be sustained, so that the children of Wales can be taught in an environment that they and their teachers should expect in the 21st century?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, under the Chancellor's spending plans, which were announced only recently, we will see education capital budgets in Wales rising from around £100 million a year to £139 million a year over the next few years. That sustained investment will continue under Labour but would be at risk under the Tories. Indeed, in her constituency of Conwy, the replacement of three secondary schools, Ysgol John Bright in Llandudno, Ysgol Aberconwy and Ysgol Dyffryn Conwy, has recently been completed, and primary schools have all been modernised. That is an example of success in her constituency under Labour.

When the Secretary of State next meets his colleagues in the Assembly, will he also discuss the spending review in relation to any decisions that may be taken by the Ministry of Defence, and the impact that that will have on the red dragon project and the economy of Wales?

Community Support Officers

4.

What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the deployment of additional community support officers and community wardens in Wales. [187922]

My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss matters affecting Wales. Currently, 122 community support officers are on patrol in Wales. An additional 46 officers have been secured for the four Welsh forces in the third round of Home Office funding.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He will know that community support officers are at the cutting edge, in Wales and elsewhere, of the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour. I welcome the fact that, before long, there will be 57 community support officers in Gwent alone. Does he agree, however, that to sustain that kind of support and intervention, continuing high levels of public expenditure are needed?

Certainly, investment in fighting crime is important, and this Government are committed to that, with increases not just in community support officers but in police numbers. We are working closely in partnership with local government, too. In my hon. Friend's borough, which he and I jointly represent, I am sure that he will welcome the newly elected Labour council's decision to employ safety wardens, who will promote community safety and help to tackle crime in support of the work being done by the police. It is further evidence of Labour's commitment to overcome the problems of crime that we face in society.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Newport Chief Superintendent Price is deploying individuals police officers to each ward to build a relationship with the local community? They will be supported by uniformed community support officers to give local residents additional reassurance, and to deter anyone minded to indulge in antisocial behaviour. Chief Superintendent Price is leading by example, being regularly out on the beat himself. Will my hon. Friend commend that strategy?

I certainly will. I met Chief Superintendent Price only last week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that people do not just want to see the bobby on the beat; they want a strong, organised, uniformed presence back on our streets. I commend the commitment of Gwent police to the introduction of police ward managers, which will mean 66 extra bobbies on the beat. That, I think, will be welcomed throughout the country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that community support officers could work very effectively with the youth service in trying to combat the problems of under-age drinking? It is a particular nuisance in my constituency, where a tremendous amount of litter, debris and glass is being left on the village green and playing fields. Could not an approach involving partnership and co-operation help to solve the problem?

It could indeed. We are living in a time when there is a culture of binge drinking among young people, and for both social and health reasons it is important to tackle that. We need to collaborate with a whole spectrum of organisations, including the police, the health service, youth services and local authorities. The joined-up government that we need is taking place in Wales, where work is being done in partnership with—in particular—our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly.

I know of the difficulties that my hon. Friend is experiencing in his constituency, and of the hard work that he is doing to overcome them. I wish him well, and I hope that the success of his efforts in Monmouth pays him substantial dividends.

Fallen Sheep

5.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on compensation to farmers for fallen sheep. [187923]

No compensation is available to farmers for fallen sheep in Wales. However, a national fallen stock scheme has been set up to provide farmers with a means of disposing of their fallen stock. The scheme is due to be launched in autumn this year.

The Minister will know that there are currently 25 outlets for disposal of fallen sheep in Wales, but does he also know that 20 of them are run by hunts? If the Hunting Bill is passed tonight, only five will be left. What will be the extra cost to farmers?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In setting up the national scheme, we seek to tackle the problems throughout the country. Issues will arise from whatever the House decides later, but there is a free vote and I do not want to prejudge the result.

Does the Minister agree with the farming unions in Wales that imposing a flat rate on the disposal of fallen stock would be far fairer than penalising those who live in more problematic, less accessible areas? What evaluation have the Government made of the huge likely increase in predation of lambs as a direct result of the ignorant move made by the Government today?[Interruption.]

I must ask the House to come to order. The Chamber is very noisy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps those who are cheering me will be quieter.

I take the hon. Gentleman's first point. Discussions have taken place, and the introduction of the national scheme this autumn is a result of joint efforts by Government and the farming industry. There will of course be transitional financial support during the first three years, which will help farmers who are currently having a difficult time.

I also take the hon. Gentleman's second point, but I am not in a position to answer it at this stage. I will write to him.

Disabled People

6.

What plans he has to help disabled people in Wales. [187924]

Across Wales and England we are improving access for disabled people to services generally, and in particular conditions at work. From 1 October, employers and service providers will have new duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to remove inequalities.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the proposal to cut classes in Cardiff for disabled people—namely, adults with physical disabilities, acquired-brain injuries and mental health problems, and the hearing-impaired? Should those cuts not be reversed, and is it not an absolute disgrace that that is the first action of the newly elected Liberal Democrat council?

I must say that I was horrified to hear of those cuts, and I agree that it is shameful that the Liberal Democrats have implemented that policy, especially given that their manifesto document, published this week, states:

"The Liberal Democrats would implement policies to deal with the pressing needs of the many disabled people living in our communities."
It seems that this is yet another case of the Liberal Democrats promising one thing in order to get into office, and doing something quite different when they do so—a point that the voters of Hartlepool will, I hope, bear in mind.

Having carefully considered the circumstances of people with disabilities in Wales, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what input he and his Department have had into the debate within government about the creation of a single equality Act?

We of course made that contribution and discussed the matter with colleagues. The hon. Gentleman will know of the legislation that, subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, will introduce new rights for disabled people. I hope that he will support it.

On the cuts in disabled services mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), is my right hon. Friend aware that they will also affect Rookwood hospital, in my constituency? Is it not particularly pernicious that the cuts were announced only in late July, yet the budgets for the courses ran from April? Does that not show that, when the Liberal Democrats actually get into power, they cannot be trusted?

It certainly shows that one cannot trust the Liberal Democrats, whether they are campaigning to get into power or in power. Indeed, as I understand it, the service at Rookwood hospital to which my hon. Friend refers has helped for 30 years to rehabilitate disabled people. The fact that it is now being jeopardised by a Liberal Democrat council should give everybody pause for thought when considering voting Liberal Democrat in any elections to come.

Antisocial Behaviour

7.

What recent discussions he has had with the chief constable of South Wales police on antisocial behaviour. [187925]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the chief constables of all four Welsh police forces. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provides a wide range of tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are determined that people should be able to live their lives free from intimidation and harassment.

I wonder whether the Minister noticed the recent comments of the chief constable of South Wales police, which seem to suggest that she is very hesitant about using all the powers now available to her to deal with antisocial behaviour. Will the Minister explain to her that the people of Maerdy and Treherbert are sick and tired of young people marauding around the town, and that they want the police to take every step available to them under these powers?

The chief constable of South Wales police was right to highlight the wide range of powers in place to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are determined to crack down on those who make life a misery for working people. In March of this year the third set of powers in the 2003 Act came into force, thereby giving the police greater scope for combating antisocial behaviour. I have a simple message for the authorities about those new powers. Now that they have them, there is no excuse: use them. They have the tools—they should now do the job.

I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but I also commend the new chief constable for agreeing to attend a series of autumn meetings on antisocial behaviour in my constituency, at which, I am convinced, the message that these powers must be used will be rammed home. I ask the Minister to pay tribute to the work of the boys' and girls' clubs of Wales, which play an important role in tackling the scourge of antisocial behaviour by providing youngsters with responsible spare-time leisure activities. Will he receive a delegation to discuss their work?

I would be happy to meet such a delegation. It is important that we engage with young people in order to overcome the problem of antisocial behaviour in our communities, and I am pleased that police forces and local authorities are now actively promoting the use of antisocial behaviour orders. Indeed, in the year to 31 March there has been a 171 per cent. rise in the number of ASBOs issued, which is to be welcomed. As I said earlier, the tools are now there for the authorities to do the job. We expect them to use them, and to tackle the antisocial behaviour that is a plague in our society.

Devolution

8.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on devolving further powers to the Assembly. [187926]

The First Minister and I have regular bilaterals to discuss a number of issues, including the report of the Richard commission and the devolution of further powers to Wales.

What is the current thinking of the First Minister on the devolution of further powers to Wales, and is it the same as the right hon. Gentleman's?

The answer is yes, and we are committed to a practical route map for better governance in Wales and increased and enhanced powers for the National Assembly for Wales, through consultation, as agreed unanimously at our Welsh Labour conference on Saturday by 300 delegates. That contrasts with the policy of the chair of the Welsh Conservative party, who wants the Assembly stripped of power, no doubt in preparation for a future under planet Redwood, which would see Wales being dragged back and powers taken back to the Tories.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Q1. [188831]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 September.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is a high number of pensioner households? What does he plan to do to help those pensioners, and in particular the one in four single women pensioners who live in poverty?

We have a number of different measures that will help single women in retirement in particular. First, there is the extra money that we are giving through the pension credit; then there is the £200 fuel allowance; there is also the free television licence for those over 75; and there is the state second pension, which will help about 20 million low-income earners to get a better retirement income. We have continued to put a substantial amount—about £10 billion a year extra—into pensions, but we will not, as the Conservatives want us to, abolish the state second pension; and we will not abolish the pension credit, because it is helping many people to get relief from poverty.

The justice gap is the difference between the number of crimes recorded and the number that result in the criminal being brought to justice. The Home Secretary says that this is the key measure of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and a crucial indicator of success in reducing crime. What has happened to the justice gap since the Prime Minister took office?

The most effective measure of crime is the crime survey. Let me point out that, as opposed to the Conservatives, under whose tenure of office crime doubled, it has fallen 30 per cent. under us. The level of detection and conviction is important, but I understand from the Home Secretary that there has been an improvement of some 50,000 in the past year.

The Prime Minister is paid to discharge his constitutional responsibilities, and they include answering questions at the Dispatch Box. Now let me give him the answer that he was not prepared to give. I will tell him what has happened to the justice gap since he took office: it has got wider. Recorded crime is up by 825,000, but the number of cautions and convictions is down by 42,000, so under this Government there are more crimes but fewer criminals are being caught and convicted.

Now let us look at another gap. Five years ago, the Prime Minister promised to stop incapacity benefit being an alternative to long-term unemployment or early retirement. What has happened to the number of people claiming that benefit since that promise?

First, let me revert to the so-called "justice gap" for a moment. It is the case that during the time in which the Conservatives governed, crime doubled. It is also the case that, in the British crime survey, crime has fallen by 30 per cent. It is further the case that there are record numbers of police and they are now being supplemented by community support officers. This party in government has a better record on crime than the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party ever had.

On incapacity benefit, I think that about 300,000 fewer people are coming on to it than when we took office.

The question I asked was about the number of people claiming, which has gone up by 120,000. This week, the head of the Prime Minister's own antisocial behaviour unit said:

"I can think of countless families who are drinking or drug using with the money … the Government is giving them."
That is what the head of his own unit said.

Does the Prime Minister agree with another of his advisers, his former chief economic adviser, who said this week that under this Government, "the regulatory burden" has "increased", "the tax system" has
"become more complicated and the tax burden"
is "rising too"?

First, let me correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on incapacity benefit. It is true, of course, that the number of people claiming incapacity benefit trebled under the Conservatives. There are still many people on incapacity benefit today who came on to it before 1997. The question is how many are coming on to the benefit each year now as opposed to 1997—and the numbers have declined by 30 per cent. I agree that there is still a lot more to do, which is precisely why we want to tighten up the gateway of people coming on to incapacity benefit. Let us be quite clear, however, that for a long period under the Conservatives incapacity benefit was the result of the way they shunted people off unemployment benefit to make sure that they never appeared in the official figures. So we will take no lessons from the Tories on incapacity benefit.

As for the economy, let us compare the economy now with the economy when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office—[Interruption.] He was a Cabinet Minister for 10 years. Under this Government we have the lowest inflation, the lowest interest rates, the lowest levels of unemployment for more than 30 years. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Employment Secretary, there were 1 million extra people on the dole. That is the difference between the two parties.

Let me remind the Prime Minister about the question that I asked him. It was about the views of his former chief economic adviser, who said that the regulatory and tax burden had gone up. Let me give the Prime Minister a hint: his former chief economic adviser is right, which is why for the first time ever our national income per head is lower than that of the Republic of Ireland.

In respect of the Prime Minister's NHS plan, four years ago the Government promised to tackle the problem of hospital cleanliness, so have the figures got better or worse?

I have to return to the original point on the economy. Let me make it clear that the burden of tax is less than it was under most of the years of the previous Conservative Government, but it is true that we have increased national insurance to fund improvements in the national health service. We are proud of doing that; it is the right thing to do. It means that, for the first time, instead of health waiting lists going up—they were 400,000 under the Conservatives—they are 300,000 down under us.

In respect of the other policy issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about, which I am afraid has just slipped my mind—[Interruption.]

No, the economy was the issue before it. What was the last one? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hospital cleanliness."] Yes, that was it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that that is a major issue. We accept that, which is why we are investing about £300 million extra in hospital cleanliness over the next couple of years. However, that real issue should not detract from the Government's record on the health service, where waiting lists have fallen, people are able to get access to health care far quicker and there have been record increases in the number of doctors and nurses. I agree that there is still more to do and that hospital cleanliness is one example of that. However, cutting investment in the national health service—we should remember that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against all the extra investment for the NHS—is not the answer.

The problem of hospital cleanliness is rather an important one, and if the Prime Minister concentrated on answering the questions that I am putting to him, it would not have slipped his mind.

The number of deaths from the MRSA superbug has actually doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Those who work in the NHS, including the chief executive, say that Government targets make matters worse. The National Audit Office says that more than one in 10 local hospital managers refuse to allow specialist teams to close wards to deal with those infections because of the Government's targets. Will the Prime Minister instruct his Health Secretary today to insist that the recommendations of infection teams are followed?

First, the additional money that we are putting in will make a difference, and its effectiveness will be measured. The Leader of the Opposition talks about MRSA levels, but the proper computation of those levels has been available only under this Government. It is correct to say that we have more to do on this issue, but I do not believe that the answer is to get rid of Government targets. We are putting record investment into the health service and it is important that we demand outputs for it. That should not interfere with clinical judgment, but if we are putting the money in, it is important that we get the results out. That is what we are doing.

I asked the Prime Minister to take specific action today to deal with this dreadful problem, but yet again all we have had from him is more talk. Crime is up, incapacity benefit is out of control, tax is rising, hospital infections are spreading and there is a crisis in pensions, but the Prime Minister's message to the people of this country is that his priority is to ban fox hunting. When will he get to grips with the problems that people really care about?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman finally got to his point at the end. When people look at this Government's record, they will see a record on the economy that is strong, with the lowest rates of interest, inflation and unemployment for more than 25 or 30 years. They will see record levels of employment, rising living standards and record school results. The British crime survey shows not only that crime is falling but that we have record numbers of police. In respect of the NHS and education, people can see that the investment is working. This country is stronger, fairer and more prosperous than it was seven years ago, and I believe that that is one reason why people reject the Conservatives.

Will my right hon. Friend review the application of the double jeopardy rule to our soldiers serving abroad? Surely it cannot be right for soldiers whose commanding officer has dismissed as unfounded the serious criminal charges that they faced to have those charges resurrected by the civilian authorities?

The House will accept that we have to investigate allegations of abuse and, if necessary, prosecute them. We would also be subject to criticism if we did not do that but merely said that we would not take up the issue. I want to make one thing clear to my hon. Friend: the vast bulk of British soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere around the world do a magnificent job. They do not mistreat prisoners, but treat the local communities extremely well, which is why they are so popular as peacekeepers. Even so, where there is mistreatment, I am afraid that we have to investigate it.

I am sure that the Prime Minister and the House are well aware of the outstanding contribution that the Gurkhas have made to the British armed forces over many generations. A relatively small number overall of Gurkha soldiers who complete their service in our armed forces here seek British citizenship. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that their right to be accorded citizenship is long overdue?

As I think I said a week or two ago, we are examining this issue very carefully. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks, but obviously we understand the strength of the case that is being made.

As the UK chairman of the Gurkhas pointed out to me earlier this week, many of those who are seeking British citizenship would be a positive asset to our country both socially and economically, as they were in the armed forces. The Prime Minister is right to praise our armed forces, not only for the combat tasks they undertake but for their hurricane relief support work and their work saving lives during the floods in Cornwall this summer. Would not it be a great morale boost for the Gurkhas and for the armed forces as a whole if this much respected and decorated regiment were to be acknowledged in that way?

Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Gurkhas on my own and the whole House's behalf for the fantastic work that they do. They are an integral part of the British Army, and we are proud to have them with us. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the issue is not just the Gurkhas themselves, because the strength of that case is clear, but we simply have to examine what the consequences might be of agreeing to that case. We are doing that, and I shall be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks.

Q2. [188832]

In February, Stephan Pakerra, a 14-year-old Leicester schoolboy, was brutally murdered by a 17-year-old with a claw hammer and a knife. There were more than 50 injuries to his body. The parents of the victim believe that the perpetrator of that savage attack was influenced by the video game "Manhunt". Later today, there will be a meeting in Westminster to discuss video games and their effect on children. Will the Prime Minister ask the Home Secretary whether he will commission new research to look at a connection between video games and crimes of violence? Will he meet a delegation of concerned parents about the issue?

I am obviously happy to meet any of my hon. Friend's constituents or people concerned about this issue, and the Home Secretary will have heard what my hon. Friend has just said. I offer my deepest sympathy to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. I can also say, from what I have been told about this game, that it is obviously in no way suitable for children. In fact, the sale of the game to a person under 18 should be illegal. Responsible adults should have the right to watch and choose what games they play and films they see, but children need to be protected. We have Europe's strongest system for controlling the sale of computer games that are not suitable for children. It is run by the Video Standards Council, which applies the familiar British Board of Film Classification rating system. Given the prevalence of these games, however, this issue is worth looking at closely, and I shall certainly discuss with the Home Secretary how we can take matters forward.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister quite rightly told us that the planet was in danger and that we must generate much more power from renewable sources, yet Talisman Energy, which wants to develop the world's largest wind farm in the Moray firth, says that the greatest single threat to the viability of that project is the charges being proposed by Ofgem and the National Grid Company. Can the Prime Minister explain why it should cost £20 per kilowatt to connect to the grid in the north of Scotland, whereas anyone can be subsidised by £9 per kilowatt if they want a wind farm in central London—[Interruption.] Though not the Prime Minister's hot air, perhaps. Will the Prime Minister intervene to join up the thinking of his Government on those matters?

We are committed to increasing the amount of renewable energy. Obviously, wind will be a substantial source of that, particularly off shore. I do not know about the particular position that the hon. Gentleman asked about, and I can certainly look into it. I have to say that the Government's commitment over the past few years to renewable energy makes it clear that we are increasing the proportion of our energy needs that is met by renewables. We are making a substantial investment and will continue to do so.

Q3. [188833]

May I take my right hon. Friend to the Government's alcohol strategy and to the important speech that he gave earlier in the year about binge drinking? This morning, my noble Friend Lord Mitchell and I hosted the launch of the charity NOFAS UK—the National Organisation on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome—and its video for schools. Will my right hon. Friend lend his support to the video's message that if pregnant women binge-drink there is a serious danger to their children in the future? In particular, will he lend his support to the incorporation of the issue in the forthcoming public health White Paper?

On the specific issue of foetal alcohol syndrome, we know that excessive drinking may affect the brain of a developing foetus. The evidence is absolutely clear, and I am sure that responsible women who are pregnant will take account of it. The forthcoming public health White Paper will build on the progress that we have made with the alcohol strategy. It will deal with this as a matter of public health, but, in addition, strong measures are now in place in relation to binge drinking and antisocial behaviour. As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was saying a few minutes ago, the powers to deal with that exist, and we urge the police and local authorities to use them. On the specific issue of public health, we will deal more with it shortly when the Government's White Paper comes.

Q4. [188834]

The Prime Minister kindly met me earlier in the year to discuss the growing problem caused locally by Travellers buying greenbelt land and illegally developing it. However, the Government's recent response—the 28-day temporary stop notice—is widely seen as a fudge, because all it does is postpone the problem and thereafter our inadequate planning laws kick in. Will the Prime Minister recognise that the Government's indecision on the issue is now causing increasing anger and threatens the peace and harmony of many local communities, for all concerned? Will he now re-examine my private Member's Bill, which proposed a fair solution to the problem and had good cross-party support, but was blocked by the Government without explanation?

As I think I said to the hon. Gentleman when we met in February, I am basically sympathetic to the points that he makes. As he knows, we are undertaking a policy review on the position of Gypsies and Travellers, which we will publish shortly. My understanding is that the 28-day delay allows the local authority to take prompt action. I know that he disagrees with that and thinks that we need additional legal powers. I am happy to look at the question again and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but we think that the powers are valid—as I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said to the hon. Gentleman when we met. I entirely agree that it is a major issue in certain communities—I know that from my own constituency—and it is important that the powers are in place to deal with it effectively. I will go back and have a look at the issue again, but it is worth pointing out that we have strengthened the law, and the advice we are receiving—although I will check it carefully —is that the law is sufficiently strong to enable us to deal with the problem. I understand that it is an issue in some areas and I will look into it carefully myself.

This Sunday sees the first significant extension of open access land in England under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the establishment of a legal right to roam fulfils a Labour ambition that goes back many generations. Will he today send a message of solidarity and celebration to those who will gather in the Peak district in my constituency this weekend to celebrate the right to roam?

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the Act introduced a major new right for which people have campaigned for more than a century. By the end of December 2005, walkers will have new rights of access to some 3,200 sq miles of open country and registered common land in England. It is important to realise that the Act and the countryside code strike a proper balance between the rights of walkers and those of landowners. I hope and believe that matters can be resolved sensibly, so that people have access to more of our countryside, which they have wanted for many years, without interfering with the proper use of the land by its owners.

Q5. [188835]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister told other countries to take seriously the threat of climate change, so why does he have a domestic energy policy that makes no sense and that will desecrate large areas of our country with unreliable wind turbines, which will not solve the problem? At the same time, nuclear power, which does make a positive contribution, will be allowed to wither away without replacement. Will he close the familiar gap between what he says and what he does, and get a domestic energy policy that measures up to the scale of his environmental rhetoric?

It was this Government who played a major part in negotiating the Kyoto protocol, and we have also reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy, far from being an accidental part of our strategy, is a vital part of our ability to meet our targets for greenhouse gas emissions, and I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is against it. We made it clear in the White Paper that we have not shut the door on nuclear power, but until the issues of cost and public concern about safety can be met there is simply not the consent to go ahead with it. That is why it is important that we continue to invest in new technologies, such as renewable energy. It is a perfectly coherent policy to say that we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy and greater energy efficiency are good ways to achieve that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the arrest and detention in Jerusalem of my constituent, Hajira Qureshi, a student of mathematics at Cambridge university? No charges have been brought against Ms Qureshi or her two companions, yet they were subject to a raid of their hotel room at 3 am and were strip-searched. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Israeli authorities and protest about that unprovoked attack on British citizens?

According to the Foreign Secretary, we are following that up, but of course I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are aware that three British nationals were arrested by Israeli authorities; they have been seen by our consular authorities who are providing all the assistance they can. I understand that they were subsequently released from custody. We have raised the matter with the chief of police in Jerusalem and we shall continue to pursue it with the Israeli authorities. At this stage, that is all I can say to my hon. Friend.

Q6. [188836]

Although the Isle of Wight is one of Britain's prime tomato producers, it is hard to find island tomatoes in local supermarkets, yet I can buy mangetout from Sierra Leone. It costs the same to get a beef carcase to a wholesaler from Argentina as it does from parts of Britain. What is the Prime Minister doing to cut food miles?

For some reason, the mangetout section has been left out of my brief and I apologise for that. To be absolutely frank, I do not know, so I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject—but I am sure that we are doing something.

Cross-Departmental Working

Q7. [188838]

If he will make a statement on the impact of cross-departmental working on the Government since 1997.

All Departments work closely together to ensure the co-ordination of policy. Cross-departmental working and its impact is most noticeable in areas such as crime and asylum and in relation to public health, where we need to bring a whole series of Departments together to work in a constructive and cooperative way.

The Prime Minister will know that Nottingham, North, especially its outer estates, is one of the poorest UK constituencies, but excellent cross-departmental working has helped to tackle some of the problems—the new deal, Sure Start and the building schools for the future programme. However, there are now 36 funding streams coming into Nottingham, North and 20 organisations involved in regeneration. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in trying to cut through and clarify the plethora of bodies and initials, which confuse local people, so that regeneration can be done not to, but with, the people who are its subject?

The point my hon. Friend raises is correct. Indeed, I am already taking an interest in, and have held several meetings on, the subject. Most people recognise that the money going into communities through the new deal, Sure Start and elsewhere is making a real difference to some of the poorest communities in our country, but it is true that there is a plethora of funding streams, which causes unnecessary difficulty and bureaucracy. The new local area agreements, which merge various funding streams locally to support the delivery of agreed outcomes, will be taken forward. I hope that in that area, too, we can learn from experience to ensure that people are accountable for the money we spend while also ensuring that they get it more effectively and quickly than they do at the moment. I would say one final thing to my hon. Friend: the other day, when I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), I saw the work that inner-city regeneration is doing with not just the support of local people but their active involvement, and that is a programme of which we can be very proud.

Engagements

Q8. [188839]

On the topic of urban regeneration, is the Prime Minister aware that in my constituency there are proposals to close three urban post offices? In two of those areas, the nearest post office is more than a mile away, and in one of the areas there are plans to build hundreds more houses, all of which will increase car journeys, yet only yesterday the Prime Minister said that he was concerned about the emission of poisonous gases into the atmosphere. How does he square his policy of closing post offices with his alleged concern for the environment?

It is not that we have a policy of closing post offices. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the previous Government, about 3,000 post offices closed. Post offices have continued to close under this Government, because their business and financial viability is being altered as a result of more people getting their benefit not through the post office but through their bank account. We have set aside several hundred million pounds to support rural post offices, but in the end we cannot support every post office, no matter what its financial viability is. That is why we have substantial investment going in, but there is no point in kidding people; unless we double or treble that investment we cannot keep every post office open.

Q9. [188840]

May I inform my right hon. Friend that, this week, we will be celebrating the fact that the 1,000th home on the Middle Park estate in Eltham will be improved under the decent homes programme? Although we are justifiably proud of our investment in decent homes, there still remains a problem in my area with young families who cannot find affordable homes. Those people have grown up in houses that were built by Labour, and they look to Labour to provide for them and their families. May I appeal to my right hon. Friend to allow local authorities once again to build council houses using their investment allowance?

First, the point that my hon. Friend raises is correct. There is obviously a real issue to do particularly with younger people wanting to get their feet on the rungs of housing ownership and being unable to do so, and we hope that we can address that over the next few weeks. There is also a need for greater social housing, and we are putting additional resources—billions of pounds—into that. He is also right in saying that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of social homes that do not meet the decency minimum threshold, and we have reduced that by 1.6 million homes in this country over the past few years, but we will put more investment and resource into it. I agree that one part of that must be social housing, which can come from a variety of sources. Over the next few years, we are supporting housing for up to 12,000 key workers in London. That will make a substantial difference not just to housing but to the quality of people who can come into our public services.

Bill Presented

Legislation (Memoranda Of European Derivation)

Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. Richard Shepherd, Sir Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Angela Browning, Sir Peter Tapsell, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. David Amess and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, presented a Bill to require a Minister of the Crown, the National Assembly for Wales, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Scottish Minister in respect of any primary or subordinate legislation which gives effect to any European Community treaty, obligation or instrument to publish a memorandum specifying the relevant European Community treaty, obligation or instrument from which it is derived and identifying which provisions in the legislation are so derived: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 155].

Desecration Of National Flags

2.32 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a criminal offence of desecrating national flags: to establish penalties in relation to the offence; and for connected purposes.
This Bill was promoted by the letters that I received from my constituency and elsewhere following scenes of the burning of our Union flag on the streets of London earlier this year. National flags—the emblem of a nation state—do not belong to, or represent, a Government or a policy; they belong to all of us. Most people have a sense of possession and belonging whether they were born in a country or whether it becomes their adoptive home. They identify with their flags, often with pride, as we saw in Athens at the Olympic games.

Love of country and the symbols of nationhood are deemed by some today to be politically incorrect. I do not share that view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I empathise with those who find it grossly offensive to see our flag desecrated, as defined by the dictionary as
"to violate the sacred character of an object".
Even more so, that inflames anger when there appears to be no redress. Such actions in a public place not only offend; in some instances, they incite racial hatred and can lead to violence.

In studying how other countries have approached the problem, I find that many other countries have enacted legislation to include penalties of both fines and imprisonment. Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and India have all enacted such legislation, and some countries, such as Norway and Japan, have legislated specifically in respect of foreign flags, knowing how offensive it is if those flags are destroyed in their countries.

The Bill does not seek to trivialise the use of the flag where it has been adapted, for example, in the design of garments. I have received a certain amount of correspondence about the use of the flag in underwear design, and I want to make it clear to the House that the Bill does not seek to prohibit that sort of fun. Nor would I oppose the Union flag being incorporated in advertising or projected on the front of Buckingham palace, as we have seen in the past.

The Bill is a direct response to the silent majority who expect action to be taken when acts of desecration take place. Last Sunday, the Sunday Express carried out a telephone poll to find out what its readers thought about the act of burning the Union flag and whether they thought that that should be made a criminal act. I was pleased that 1,096 people spent their own money to respond to that poll and that 98 per cent. said that there should be such legislation. Additionally, such a measure would have the support of the Victoria Cross Society.

I am only too well aware of the limitations of a ten-minute Bill, so although I hope that mine will proceed, I am perhaps more realistically addressing the Government Front Bench in the hope that time will be found to include such a provision in a Home Office Bill. If the Government fail to do that, I hope that my Front Bench, when we come to office after the next general election, will include the measure in an early Home Office Bill.

12.36 pm

I had not intended to speak until I heard what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said. It would not be right for the House to allow a Bill that would restrict freedom of expression and free speech to pass unchallenged.

I accept that many people are offended when they see the burning—or what they describe as the desecration—of the national flag, and I agree with the hon. Lady that using and supporting the flag should not be seen as politically incorrect, whether that is in the context of sporting occasions or supporting the nation. I also accept that a flag is the emblem of a national state and that it belongs not to the Government but to all of us. However, she paid no attention to the requirement that the House and country should have to recognise that freedom of speech and expression should be allowed as long as other people are not damaged. People in this country must accept that others will have opinions and ways of expressing those opinions that may insult them, so it is wrong to use words such as "desecration" and to consider things to be sacred in such a way as to criminalise freedom of expression.

There is a tradition of burning flags as an expression of disgust—sometimes outright disgust—at something that is done in one's name by one's country. I would not use that method because I appreciate how insulting it can be, but nevertheless other people choose to. Short of covering the act under considerations of public order and burning in general, it should not be made a criminal offence, so I urge the House to oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Christopher Chope, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Dame Marion Roe, Mr. Andrew Rosindell and Angela Watkinson.

Desecration Of National Flags

Mrs. Angela Browning accordingly presented a Bill to establish a criminal offence of desecrating national flags; to establish penalties in relation to the offence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 156].

Hunting Bill (Procedure)

12.39 pm

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall have effect in relation to the Hunting Bill—
  • 1. Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
  • 2. At the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading—
  • (1) the Bill shall be treated as having been committed to a Committee of the whole House and as having been reported from the Committee without amendment, and
  • (2) the House shall proceed to consider any Motion standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown under section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 for a suggested amendment to the Bill.
  • 3. Proceedings on that Motion shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, three hours after their commencement (for which purpose the Speaker shall put only the Question on any amendment of the Motion selected by him and the Question on the Motion).
  • 4. Proceedings on Third Reading—
  • (1) may be taken immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion mentioned in paragraphs 2(2) and 3, and
  • (2) shall be brought to a conclusion half an hour after their commencement.
  • 5. No motion may be made to recommit the Bill.
  • 6. In relation to the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 above—
  • (1) Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply,
  • (2) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House,
  • (3) the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply,
  • (4) the proceedings shall not be interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (and any such Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of such of the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 as are to be taken at the sitting concerned),
  • (5) no dilatory motion may be made except by a Minister of the Crown,
  • (6) the Question on any dilatory motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be put forthwith, and
  • (7) if the House is adjourned or the sitting is suspended during the course of the proceedings, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown at the next sitting of the House varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  • 7. The Question on any Motion varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (whether by making provision about Lords messages or otherwise) shall be put forthwith.
  • I shall be extremely brief because I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will want to use the time available to discuss the substantive issues. The procedure motion gives reasonable time for debate on an issue that has been before the House many, many times. Indeed, one is tempted to say that everything that could be said has been said on many occasions. It is, in addition, the same Bill that came before the House last year, when it was debated extensively. Later in the process, there will be a debate on the sensible proposition on commencement.

    The Minister will know that under section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 it is possible to suggest amendments to improve the Bill. No time is allowed for any such suggestion motions, except for the Minister's suggested amendments. Is not it wrong in those circumstances to say that there is adequate time for debate?

    Not at all. There was plenty of opportunity for positive acts of amendment in two places—first, in this House, when it was last before us and, secondly, in another place, when it had the opportunity, which it did not fully take, to amend, debate and improve the Bill and return it to this House. I am absolutely clear that there has been plenty of opportunity to consider all the issues and plenty of opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to produce amendments and suggest improvements. I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's implication.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Lords did not complete its consideration of the Bill because it was effectively withdrawn by the Government before all the amendments could be discussed?

    I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely and completely wrong. The House of Lords failed to complete its consideration of the Bill. It failed to use the time that the Government made available and to take advantage of a series of options for additional time. Debate on the Bill ceased as a result of an Opposition Chief Whip—I believe it was the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip—moving that the debate should end. The Government were prepared to give more time for debate, but the forces that wish to prevent the Bill's progress unfortunately did not take the time available to them in the House of Lords. This House, in contrast, has been quick to make full use of every minute of time made available to it on many occasions, and this motion deals with the timing of debates in this House.

    At the end of an interesting week in Parliament, it seems that the British people will be able to beat their children but not chase a fox. Does the Minister think that the Government have got the balance right?

    The hon. Gentleman's flippant approach to both issues is rather sad. He will know as well as I do that issues such as education, getting young people into jobs and strengthening the economy, and large issues of health and the environment, which the Prime Minister addressed in an excellent speech yesterday, are the Government's priorities. This issue has been taking up parliamentary time year after year, and it must be brought to a conclusion. At the time of the last general election, we undertook to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. We have also made it clear that we would prefer those on the Opposition Benches and in another place to address the legislation before them, to seek to improve it and to argue the issues rather than to frustrate the will of this House, which has been reinforced on occasion after occasion.

    Several hon. Members rose

    Does the Minister agree that the only reason the Bill is before us is that we are in the run-up to an election and the Government want to placate the left wing of the Labour party? It has nothing to do with the issue and the Bill will not bring the matter to a conclusion. Why do the Government not bring it to a conclusion by making it an election issue rather than delaying it for two years?

    The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to point out that this was an election issue: we said in our manifesto that we would enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. We have been an extremely patient Government because we have tried to bring people together and get them to listen to each other, and to find ways forward that are less divisive than those of the two, very shrill, extremes in the debate. I personally have invested an enormous amount of time in that, and it has been worth while; I do not regret it. However, it has become clear that the views are so polarised that it is impossible to deal with the issue in that way, and the House of Lords failed to take the opportunity to improve the Bill and return it to us, so I tell the hon. Gentleman that he is entirely wrong.

    Does the Minister agree—he probably does not—that the Prime Minister has quite cynically manipulated this issue throughout two Parliaments? The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am on his side on the main issue: I shall vote for a hunting ban. However, it was not just before the last election that that pledge was made. Before the 1997 election, the Prime Minister undertook to provide a free vote followed by legislation if Parliament voted for a ban. What has he been doing in the last seven years to fulfil that promise, except to delay and then revive the issue every time it suited him electorally?

    I welcome the right hon. Lady's support for the substantive motion today, but I do not think that playing to her colleagues with that bit of populism will win her back support in the Conservative party. As for her question, I disagree with her passionately, as she knows. In the 1997 general election we promised a free vote in the House followed by legislation. We had the free vote; we had the Burns report; and we had the legislation, which did not succeed in its passage through Parliament. At the last general election we undertook to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. We have tried to do that by consensus, by discussion, by agreement and by common sense. That did not succeed. When we debated the Bill that I introduced, I did not noticeably have support from those who are shrill today. At the end of the day, this House voted, by a large majority, for a ban on hunting. I seek to facilitate further debate on that proposition today, so that we can send the Bill to the House of Lords and ensure that we reach a conclusion on the issue. That is what we promised in our manifesto and, as usual, we intend to deliver.

    I accept that the Minister has spent a great deal of time consulting various groups. On procedure, however, does he accept that those of us who actively participated in that consultation with him and others are frustrated that measures such as compensation, which everyone agreed was important, cannot be put into the Bill if we do not have a mechanism to discuss such amendments? How does the Minister intend to fill the many holes in the Bill that, I suspect, mean that it will be unable to achieve its intended purpose?

    I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman as one who has been willing to invest an immense amount of time talking to those who take a different view from him. He does credit to the House in the way he has engaged in that. He and I do not always agree but there can be no doubting his commitment to try to argue issues through and reach a conclusion.

    In a moment. I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).

    I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for additional time to discuss compensation. We dealt with the matter in earlier debates, and we do not believe that there are any grounds for compensation. Human rights issues were examined in great detail by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It raised only one narrow point, which we have examined carefully as a result of its findings. I am absolutely convinced that both on human rights and on compensation there is no need for further change to the Bill—it stands as it is drafted.

    I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) first.

    Let me just nail this point: we said in the 1997 manifesto that we would provide an opportunity for a vote in Parliament. I do not think that there was anything about using the Parliament Act if we could not get the House of Lords to agree. This is hardly the issue on which to use the Parliament Act, which is hardly ever used, not only to overrule the House of Lords but to steamroller the Bill through this House against a very large minority who do not want it.

    I interpret that in a slightly different way, and I say to my hon. Friend that this is not an appropriate issue on which the House of Lords should provoke the use of the Parliament Act. The House of Lords should engage with the Bill, amend it, seek to improve it and send it back to this House for the normal procedure of reconciliation between the two Houses. If that is what he meant, I agree with him. I do not think, though, that it would be right for this House to say, "The House of Lords doesn't want it—that's all right, we'll just roll over and leave it, then." That could not be right.

    The Bill that the Minister introduced to Parliament last year did at least provide the opportunity for hunting with dogs to continue in upland areas such as the North York Moors national park. Why has he changed his mind, given that he thought that that was so important? It cannot simply be that a majority of his Back Benchers think that it is wrong, because he pleaded with them to go ahead with that scheme.

    The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Bill did not give the opportunity for hunting in upland areas. It gave the opportunity for those who believed that they could undertake an activity of dealing with vermin through hunting in a way that was less cruel than all the alternatives to go before a tribunal to put that evidence forward. Although I do not believe that there would have been many cases in which they succeeded, providing that opportunity would have made sense. However—perhaps the hon. Gentleman failed to notice—the House voted not to create that tribunal system. The exceptions to the ban on hunting are included in the Bill—ratting, for instance, where the alternatives, such as poisoning, are particularly unacceptable. The difference is marginal: what matters is what is in the Bill.

    As the Minister knows. I have raised the issue of West Somerset, particularly Exmoor, many times. In that part of the country, hunting is not only a way of life but an integral part of the way in which the economy works. The economic impact of a direct ban would be at least £5 million and the employment impact would be 420 jobs. The indirect impact would be a further 600 jobs. That comes from an authoritative study by West Somerset district council. What will happen to that area, and why cannot we discuss that in relation to the Bill?

    I remind the hon. Gentleman that substantive issues will be debated on Second Reading. Briefly, so that I do not trespass beyond the bounds of the debate, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked very carefully at issues involved in hunting in the west country and the claims that it is important to the local culture or to the future of the deer population. I do understand the depth of feeling in certain parts of that area. There is no justification, however, for suggesting that hunting is necessary or that it is not a method of dealing with the deer population that is anything other than cruel. I therefore see no reason for extended debate on that particular issue.

    As for the economic impact, the Burns report demonstrated that the economic impact of a ban on hunting would be extremely limited, and the evidence given in Portcullis House suggested that it would be even less than that. In view of the buoyancy of the rural economy, that issue does not require extensive further debate.

    In the course of the past few minutes, my right hon. Friend has been subject to a barrage from Members whingeing and whining and wanting to rerun the principle. The truth is that for 18 years, when I was in opposition, I lost, because that was democracy. We were in the minority, and we had to take it on the chin. There are people now in this House not capable of understanding that the numbers are against them. I hope that my right hon. Friend is able to complete what he has to say, get on with the job, and tell the House of Lords to go to hell and that we will carry this Bill.

    Instead of being impolite to those in another place, I invite them to debate the Bill that we send to them. Apart from that, my hon. Friend makes many good points. Those who suggest that there is any justification for violence or protest as a result of the Bill's going through should certainly listen to his comments. As democrats we have to respect the majority.

    The Minister may recall that I supported his last Bill because I thought that it at least took science and ecology as its founding principles and had a method of dealing with those areas, particularly upland areas, where I am convinced that a decent argument has been made that hunting with hounds has ecological and environmental, as well as animal welfare considerations. This is the first time that the House has debated the Bill as a Government Bill from start to finish, and to do so in this truncated way pays great disservice, whatever the decision at the end of the day, to the House and to Members who have spent their time and effort in consultation with their constituents.

    First, the Bill that I drafted and introduced would have given the opportunity for hunting with dogs not on ecological grounds, but on the grounds that there was a necessity for a particular activity for the control of vermin and so on, and that the proposed method would be less cruel than any of the alternatives. The case for the ecological argument has not been made in the evidence that I have heard: it does not apply as it does in relation to shooting sports, for instance.

    Secondly, this is the same Bill that I introduced and that the House passed on the last occasion. I still think that it included some rather good ideas. It was debated fully and the House took its decision and voted. The hon. Gentleman should, like me, respect democracy and the conclusion of the debate in this House.

    The Minister describes himself as a democrat, as do I. Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), is he not therefore a little embarrassed, even a little ashamed, at this abuse of the parliamentary process and misuse of the Parliament Acts merely to satisfy the prejudice and bigotry of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

    The hon. Gentleman should be embarrassed that so many of his hon. Friends are here. They say that this is a trivial issue, then they all pile into the Chamber to debate it. If we had a debate immediately afterwards on education or health, they would disappear, as they usually do. There is no abuse of the processes of the House and I have nothing to be embarrassed about. I am pleased to be able to bring this Bill before us so that the House can fulfil our promise to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue.

    The right hon. Gentleman characterises democracy as respecting majorities, and of course that is partly right. Does he accept, however, that another element of democracy is to respect the rights of minorities, and that that is being disregarded in this case?

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: that is why the Government have spent so much time listening to those minorities—[Interruption.]

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, this is an issue on which very few Members appear able to be calm.

    Respect for minorities involves listening to them and deciding whether they have an argument, then, in this case, considering the central issue of whether the activities that they are undertaking are cruel, unnecessary or involve a minimum of suffering. Those are the issues on which I hope hon. Members will take their decisions in voting on the propositions in the Bill.

    In order that there can be no perceived, or real, abuse of the House during this afternoon's deliberations, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on those who have benefited from support, financial or otherwise, from campaigning organisations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and those who have indirectly benefited from its £1 million bung to the Labour party, should say so at the outset of proceedings?

    We could have an interesting discussion about the sources of Conservative party financial support. Any financial support given to the Labour party because Labour Members believe in, support and work for animal welfare would be provided only in a proper, declared manner. There should be no perception of abuse of the processes of the House. The hon. Gentleman does neither himself nor the House any credit by making such a suggestion.

    The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is about to leave the Chamber, which is unfortunate. Although the International Fund for Animal Welfare gave £1 million to the Labour party, it also gave considerable amounts to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.

    The procedure motion will facilitate proper debate and a conclusion on the divisive issue. I commend it to the House.

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to set the record straight. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) suggested that I was leaving the Chamber but I was not. I was merely moving to take my place as the Whip on duty, from which I shall be allowed to witness two and a half hours of hypocrisy, cant and prejudice.

    It has been noted that the hon. Gentleman is remaining in the Chamber.

    Before I call the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I remind hon. Members that the selection of amendments has been placed in the No Lobby in the usual way.

    1.2 pm

    I beg to move amendment (a), in line 4, leave out from "after" to end of paragraph and insert "their commencement".

    With this, we may take the following amendments: (n), in line 10, leave out from "any" to "under" in line 11 and insert "Motions".

    (o), in line 11, leave out "a suggested amendment" and insert "suggested amendments".

    (p), in line 13, leave out "that Motion" and insert "those Motions".

    (q), in line 19, leave out "Motion" and insert "Motions".

    (d), in line 20, leave out "half an" and insert "one".

    It is worth mentioning for hon. Members' convenience that we are most anxious to divide not only on amendment (a) but on amendment (n), which raises a different issue.

    The procedure motion involves a massive use of Executive power to crush an aspect of freedom in rural communities. The Leader of House, in whose name the motion stands, would allow the passing of the Bill today, but only through guillotining debate and disposing of the Committee and Report stages. He would also ensure that only the Government amendment on when the ban comes into force could go to the other place. No other amendments, many of which appear on the Order Paper, would even be debated, despite the support of many hon. Members in all parties.

    The thinking behind the procedure motion is doubtless to ensure that the Bill leaves us, as the Minister said, in exactly the same state as the previous measure, accompanied by an amendment providing for a delay, to comply with the Parliament Act.

    We oppose the procedure motion because even if the strict statutory conditions for the Parliament Act are fulfilled, the circumstances do not warrant the use of our most draconian procedures. If we are to maintain our right to debate in this place, the guillotine should be used sparingly and the Parliament Act reserved for rare circumstances in which there is no other way forward. The Parliament Act has been used when legislation is of high or constitutional importance, when there is genuine urgency and when the other place is clearly unreasonably blocking the will of the elected House.

    Is not that exactly what the House of peers is doing at the moment? How can the will of this House be fulfilled if the House of Lords continually blocks it? Surely the hon. Gentleman, as a House of Commons man, should defend our procedures.

    Yes, we should defence our procedures, but the Bill is not a case for a strict guillotine or the Parliament Act.

    My hon. Friend sets out the arguments for not invoking the Parliament Act, but a further consideration exists. Parliamentary majorities should not be used to suppress the rights of minorities. The House of Lords has an important role in safeguarding those rights. It was doing its duty and we should not override it.

    Yes, and it is also right that the Government should not use their Executive power to effect that sort of oppression of a minority.

    The Government have not known their own mind about the Bill. For the past seven long years, they have started and checked, jinked and dived and been up hill and down dale. At the end of seven years and after wasting seven months of the Session, they say that the Bill is so important that it must be tackled now. According to newspaper reports, the Government would even be prepared to sacrifice three significant Bills—the Pensions Bill, the Children Bill and the Civil Contingencies Bill—to secure the measure. What a shocking sense of priorities that displays.

    The Pensions Bill is designed to help protect the pensions of millions; the Civil Contingencies Bill is our long-delayed response to the events of 9/11; and the Children Bill deals with the needs of some of our most vulnerable children. I do not agree with some aspects of those measures, but I have no doubt that their subject matter is far more important than hunting.

    The hon. Gentleman's assertions about the use of the Parliament Act in the past are untrue. The age of consent was not an urgent constitutional issue that required the use of the Parliament Act. That also applies to the War Crimes Bill, for which the Conservative Government used the Parliament Act. People advance the belief that we should not use the Parliament Act when there is a free vote. I believe that we should be able to use it in the case of a free vote because that reflects the unfettered will of the House, unconstrained by any Whip.

    The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. I want to consider urgency, because the current circumstances do not warrant the use of the Parliament Act. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the War Crimes Bill. Ministers at the time said that that was urgent because the victims and witnesses were old and might die before they could give evidence. In the case of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it was said that no time could be lost because the new election system had to be introduced by a specific date. When the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was considered, the Government claimed that the need to respond to a decision by the European Court of Human Rights meant that there could be no delay.

    Does my hon. Friend accept that several of us were deeply unhappy about the use of the Parliament Act in all those cases? Several Conservative Members voted against the War Crimes Bill and believed that that was an improper use of the Parliament Act. If that constituted improper use, surely that is magnified 100 times in the current circumstances.

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. He cherishes the important principles on which the House operates its conventions. He is right that we should be sparing indeed in our use of the Parliament Act.

    Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality had spent more time on his so-called concern about cruelty by allowing prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill in the same way as the Government are allowing such scrutiny of the Animal Welfare Bill, or even enabling that measure to consider aspects of hunting, shooting and fishing, we would have been spared any resort to the Parliament Act?

    My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Of course, the Minister does not support the Bill in its current form. The Bill that he supported was considered last year but he was ambushed on Report. That is why we are here now.

    Will the hon. Gentleman confirm for the benefit of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that the previous Bill was considered in Committee at great length? Almost every argument that could be made was discussed. The House has spent an enormous amount of time on the Bill. Rather than rushing to resort to the provocation of the Parliament Act, the Government have been slow to do so because we did not want to do it. Will he therefore join me in urging the other place to engage properly with the Bill when we send it on instead of rejecting the will of the House of Commons?

    Let us get to the nub of the question of urgency. How can we say that this Bill is as urgent as the other Bills on which the Parliament Acts were used, when the Government themselves say, "Oh, we don't need to implement it for two years"? The sense of urgency that has existed on other occasions does not exist here.

    The contention that the Parliament Act can be used because the other place is clearly engaged in blocking the Bill also needs to be examined. The Hunting Bill that was introduced in the 2000–01 Session proposed three options: a ban, self-regulation and a statutory hunt licensing authority. This House voted for a ban; the other place voted for regulation. Far from the Government taking the view—and pursuing the matter vigorously—that this House was right and that the House of Lords was frustrating matters, the Minister introduced a Bill that provided for a regulatory approach. He therefore agreed with the broad thrust of what the other place was saying. It was hardly surprising that, when new clause 11—which would effectively ban hunting—was added to the Bill at the very last moment on Report last year, Members in the other place took the view that they did. They had been encouraged to take that view by what the Minister had said in this place. We should also not forget that the Bill had only two days in Committee in the other place before it ran out of time.

    All previous Bills passed under the Parliament Act have reached the ping-pong stage between the two Houses at least once. The basic parliamentary principle should be that the other place has either spent an inordinate time dealing with a Bill, or that it has returned it to the Commons in amended form, signifying an impasse. On this Bill, the Government initially agreed with the approach of the other place and introduced a Bill of a regulatory nature, which was ambushed on Report. They then gave up after only two days in Committee in the Lords. Far from the shilly-shallying being at the other end of this building, the blame lies fairly and squarely with the Government.

    Is it not worth remembering that, when Labour Members talk about the will of Parliament, they are actually talking about the will of a minority of Members of this House? I was a teller when the last vote was taken on this issue, and fewer than half the Members of the House of Commons voted for a ban; the other Members voted against one, absented themselves or abstained. To try to pretend that there is a great well of support in this Chamber for a ban is downright nonsense. It would be impossible to form a Government with the number of Members who voted for a ban, and that is an excellent reason for their bigoted views to be frustrated in the revising Chamber.

    I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, heard the "Today" programme this morning. A journalist from The Guardian was explaining that this issue had nothing to do with animal welfare, and that it represented the last knockings of the class war. Having heard the views of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who could disagree with that?

    Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that the Bill that we have here does not seem to be the Bill that the Minister and the Prime Minister seemed minded to support? Does he agree that a serious concern about this procedure is that a Bill that evidently does not have the unanimous support of the Government is now going to be pushed through—with all the holes that it has—without our having had the opportunity to discuss it in Committee in the lower House?

    The hon. Gentleman has played a huge part in these proceedings—[Interruption.] No, it is true that he has. He has played a very constructive part. He is right: how can the Government table a motion involving the massive Executive powers of the guillotine and the Parliament Acts, when they themselves have said that the Bill is unworkable and unenforceable? It is quite wrong for a Government to behave in this way with this sort of Bill.

    The Parliament Acts provide that a Bill sent from this House must take the same form, but this will be the first time that a Bill has been so different from the one that was originally presented that the necessary detailed provisions have not been properly debated.

    May I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he just said? He was repeating the usual nonsense about this being all about the class war. If this is a class issue, it is a middle class issue—a middle England issue. The profile of the passionate anti-hunter—which I know because I get thousands of letters from them—is a middle class white woman living in the home counties, or a county town or village who reads the Daily Mail. That shows how much of a class issue this is.

    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is the exception, but I do not think so, because he used to describe this as a totemic class issue.

    The final change that was made on Report last year resulted in a recommittal to a Standing Committee, but the debate was very limited in scope and the main problem areas were simply never debated. It is right to quote the remarks of the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who said on 30 June last year:
    "We must not send a defective Bill to the other place."
    He went on to warn that
    "we would face extreme difficulty if we sought to apply the Parliament Acts to a defective piece of legislation."—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 39.]
    The Government know the verdict of their own parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was that with a blanket ban compensation would be needed to meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights. Other important issues to be dealt with are the breadth of the offence created and the nature of the intent required to commit the offence of hunting. Whatever side of the argument we are on, not many of us would want to pass a Bill that would result in tourists being charged with hunting just because they came upon a hunt one day.

    We should have a Committee stage, and it is vital that there should be an opportunity to introduce motions suggesting amendments.

    Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a democracy such as ours, minorities put their rights and liberties at the disposal of the majority, and abide by the decisions of the majority, on the basis of an understanding that their voice will be properly heard and that the procedure will be fair? The absence of a Committee stage effectively abrogates any such concordat, and people will accordingly be inclined to look beyond Parliament for the protection of their liberties as a consequence of that omission.

    Our freedoms are important and should not be treated in a cavalier fashion. One of our great concerns is the way in which the curtailing of debate has become commonplace through the programming system. It would be extremely dangerous, from a constitutional point of view, if the use of the Parliament Acts were also to become commonplace. The Labour Peers group has suggested that the Parliament Acts should be far more regularly used, and many of us view that with great concern. Those on the other side of the House, or in the other place, who disagree with me on this issue might want to consider that, at some point, they will be on the other side of the Chamber. I hope that that will happen in six months' time, but I might be wrong. We shall have to see. That time will come, and to have curtailment of debate and the routine use of the Parliament Acts would be a disgrace.

    May I follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)? As we do not have entrenched rights, save those incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998—which are only now being developed—does it not behove hon. Members in this House to be very sparing with their power as a majority to impose on other people moral and ethical values that they simply do not share?

    That is a vital point.

    Section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides for suggestion motions, which provide the opportunity to make a proposal for an amendment to the other place. It was no less a figure than Winston Churchill in 1913, when he was a Cabinet Minister in the Liberal Government, who said:
    "The Suggestion stage is … to enable either small points which are oversights to be set right by general agreement or to enable suggestions of compromise to be put forward and debated. The root principle of the Parliament Act is that every amendment which makes for agreement, and for a change in a Bill which tends to lessen disagreement, can be incorporated in the Bill without depriving it of the advantages of the … Parliament Act".— [Official Report, 23 June 1913; Vol. LIV, c. 843.]
    On the Order Paper today, motions are proposed to deal with issues such as compensation, intent and the breadth of the offence. Only this week, we heard that the business for tomorrow could not go ahead, and that time was available. I asked that some of that time should be set aside so that motions of suggestion on practical measures could be debated. What was the Government's reaction? It was a flat no.

    Is it not an extraordinary paradox that this Government, who have extended the provision for carry-over, do not apply that rather than the Parliament Act? It would be a much less offensive procedure to carry over this Bill, with a proper Committee stage, into the next Session, which is still within the lifetime of this Parliament, rather than to use the draconian Parliament Act.

    Yes. I return to the point that I made earlier about whether Ministers believe genuinely that what is going to the other place is unworkable. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will remember saying:

    "No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable."
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality will remember saying:
    "A complete ban … would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty."
    He went on, after the ambush, to say that MPs,
    "chose a Bill that is simple to explain rather than a Bill that is simple to enforce."
    In those circumstances, how can they justify using the panoply of government—the Executive power—to force the Bill through on a guillotine, and to use the Parliament Act, when they know that the Bill needs to be amended?

    Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that if the Bill were to go to a Committee stage, the House's final decision would be different?

    The Government, not the Opposition, decide how much time is allocated for debate. Were amendment (n) allowed, which provides for other Members' motions under section 2(4) to be considered, and were the Government to allow half a day or even a day tomorrow to debate those motions, what would be lost? Nothing. The timetable for the Parliament Act would not be lost. It would just mean that this place would be allowed to do its job—to debate the concerns of the people.

    I want to make one thing clear, because several Members have spoken as though there has been no Committee stage. I remind the House that on the last occasion the Bill was re-committed for a Standing Committee to consider the implications of the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Therefore, it has had a Committee stage. In addition, for the Parliament Act to apply, the Bill must go to the House of Lords in exactly the same form as last time. If the hon. Gentleman is urging restraint, it should be on the House of Lords to address the Bill as it comes to it, and not to provoke the use of the Parliament Act.

    The Minister may have forgotten what happened last time. The re-committal motion was only in respect of clause 11, so the debate was circumscribed—a decision that you made, Mr. Speaker, and probably rightly so, on procedural grounds.

    The schedules and other issues set out on the Order Paper today were not capable of being discussed. As for section 2 motions, however, the operation of the Parliament Act would not be affected. As I suggested when I quoted Winston Churchill a moment ago, we can make suggestions, such as that for the delay, which will be debated. We could propose a suggestion on compensation, intent or the breadth of the offence, and if the other place agreed we might end up with a Bill that was a bit more enforceable or workable. It is therefore right that the House's debate should not be curtailed. Routinely, we seem to lose the opportunity to debate great rafts of amendments and new clauses as a result of the unilateral programming of legislation. The routine use of the Parliament Act for issues that are not of the highest importance is a dangerous step.

    As I said, I made a modest request of the Government for extra time. Amendment (n) would allow other motions to be discussed, and I ask all Members who value our procedures and right of debate to join me in the Lobby.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to Winston Churchill's views on the Parliament Act. He may know that Winston Churchill also used to argue that one of the terrible difficulties about the original Parliament Act—he argued this when he was a Liberal, but not when he was a Conservative—was that in the second half of a Parliament, especially a Parliament that was shortened from seven years to five years, the other place was given significant additional powers every year that the Parliament went on, because it could delay the whole Government programme. Is that not one of the major reasons why we should use the Parliament Act? Otherwise, the other place will never learn its lesson.

    The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his customary way, but the fact is that in this instance we are using the nuclear option, a draconian measure, to oppress a minority in rural areas. That is simply not acceptable, and I invite the support of Members from both sides of the House, who share a concern for our procedures and right of debate, to vote against the procedural motion and for the Opposition amendments.

    1.25 pm

    This is a very sad day for democracy. Those of us who value minority rights, our political institutions, toleration and moderation should be deeply ashamed, angry and distressed at today's proceedings. Through this motion and the Bill, we are riding roughshod over the liberties and freedoms of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. We are diminishing freedom itself. We are diminishing our freedom, and freedom under the law. That is a terrible thing to do.

    I want to turn specifically to the programme motion, which is currently before the House. First, it paves the way to the use of the Parliament Act, which is profoundly offensive. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) set out the reasons for objecting to the use of the Parliament Act. He has urged on the House that the Parliament Act should be used only in urgent and compelling cases. Surely he is right.

    We all know that there is no urgency. The Government conceded that there is no urgency by their implementation date. Leaving that aside, they could have introduced this Bill at any time in the past seven years had they chosen to do so. They did not, which is an implied recognition that there is no urgency.

    As to the compelling nature of the Bill, I am perfectly willing to accept that a large majority in the parliamentary Labour party want this Bill to be introduced. There is not a compelling desire in the country as a whole, however, but a diversity of opinion on the subject. We know as a fact that this Bill is not the Government's preferred choice, because, had it been so, they would have introduced it. Therefore, neither urgency nor compulsion is a justification for the Bill.

    Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain why the definition of non-urgency will not lead to eternal procrastination in this place, as that has been the recipe in the past?

    I will come to exactly that point. Much of the debate has centred on the opposition in the other place to the passage of the Bill. That is true—the other place will not support it. In all modesty, we ought to ask ourselves why it will not support it. I know the answer: in a free society, we should not oppress minorities, and we should be very chary about imposing our moral and ethical values on sizeable proportions of the population who do not share those values.

    In many sophisticated societies—we are one such—those propositions are defended by a Bill of Rights, which is an entrenched statutory provision policed by a supreme court. We do not have that. We must rely first on the other place and secondly on our sense of moderation. I believe in limited government. I think that majorities should be chary about imposing their views on other people. The fact that the other place has many times said no ought to suggest to us, in all modesty, that we are wrong to do that which we are doing.

    I have listened continually to the argument about repressing minorities. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall being a member of a Government who took away the right of tenure of university lecturers, got rid of the dock labour scheme, crushed the miners and, above all, reduced the rights of trade unionists? All those acts involved oppressed minorities and all used the Tory party's huge majority.

    I have two points to make in response to that. First, each issue must be determined on its merits. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman implies that this is an act of vengeance and that I find a profoundly unattractive statement.

    Would not the analogy have been rather better if the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) had mentioned his own championing of the minority in Northern Ireland, which was successful? Should we not equate that minority with the minority in rural England with whom we are concerned today?

    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that suggesting that the Bill should be forced through by means of this procedure because an earlier Government forced through other legislation that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) did not like by means of similar procedures is a pathetic justification? Surely we are all obliged to consider the benefits and the costs, rather than simply seeking vengeance. The problem with the procedure motion is that it does not allow space for us to examine the Bill's flaws in detail. It is in the interests of those who want to ban hunting with dogs to have a good Bill that works rather than one that does not work for want of proper scrutiny.

    I entirely agree—and that brings me to the terms of the motion itself.

    First, let me say something about the time allowed for Second Reading. The motion allows but five hours for discussion of both the motion itself and Second Reading, and we should bear it in mind that Divisions will come out of that time. I expect debate on the motion to continue for some time—and quite right too, for this is an important matter. The closure may be moved—although that is a matter for the Chair and indeed for hon. Members—and there may be a Division on that; in any event, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire has said that there will be two Divisions on amendments. There will therefore be at least three Divisions, and perhaps four.

    That is my point. Out of the five hours that we have been allowed, we shall have at the very most four hours in which to debate both the programme motion and Second Reading. That means about two hours for Second Reading. On any view, the Bill raises constitutional matters of the highest importance and two hours is outrageous.

    Does not the timetable motion take account of all the time that we have spent debating the issue during the life of the current Parliament? Does it not recognise that, at the last election, the Labour party was elected on the basis of a clear indication that it would allow the decision to be made on a free vote? On more than one occasion, the House has plainly taken a view on a free vote. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman really arguing that the other, unelected House should have a permanent veto?

    There are two answers to that. First, it is the business of Governments to safeguard constitutional principles and the rights of minorities. This Government are betraying both, and that is a very serious charge against them. As for the position of the other House, I have already dealt with that. I happen to believe that, on this matter, the other House is right, because it is standing up for freedom, liberty and minority rights. We should listen to what it is saying and not try to override it.

    Let me now say something about the question of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire made an important point about that. The programme motion does not allow for a Committee stage, a Report stage or any amendment whatever. That is objectionable for at least two reasons. First, I have never encountered a Bill that, even in its own terms, could not be improved. My hon. Friend pointed out that even those of us who are root and branch against the Bill, as I am, would like, if there must be legislation, at least to see competent and effective legislation. Compensation, for instance, is a vital issue, but we cannot table a compensation amendment because there is no amendment that can be tabled.

    Is it not rich for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about compensation? As Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he specifically ruled out compensation for farmers affected by BSE.

    I introduced one of the most generous schemes to support the beef market that could have been contemplated by anyone. I should have thought that there were better criticisms to make of me than that.

    My second point about amendments is desperately important. Amendments provide a way of testing the logic of any particular proposition. It is not just a case of improving a Bill; it is a case of testing its inherent logic. Amendments of that kind are often called probing amendments.

    The Bill contains an express provision permitting falconry. I happen to support falconry—I think it is a glorious sport—but I am entitled to ask, by means of an amendment, why the Bill expressly permits falconry while prohibiting hunting with hounds. Where lies the logic in that? Similarly, there are provisions relating to terrier work and shooting. I am an enthusiastic, if very incompetent, shot, but why does the Bill expressly permit terrier work on foxes in order to facilitate the shooting of pheasants, but prohibit hunting with hounds? Where lies the logic in that? That is the kind of question that can be addressed by probing amendments. Such a procedure affects public understanding of a Bill and I think that it would increase hostility towards this provision.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that, in the last Parliament, I argued in Standing Committee that the Bill would prohibit ratting. The Government denied that at several sittings, but having looked at the Bill more closely they returned several weeks later with amendments to deal with the matter.

    Schedule 1 includes ratting as a permitted form of hunting. That makes the right hon. Gentleman's point: no Bill that has ever come before us could not have been improved. By using the Parliament Act, however, we are preventing this Bill from being improved, and that is outrageous.

    I have two final points to make. The first relates to Third Reading. The motion allows but half an hour, which is a desperately short time for Members who will not have been able to speak earlier and who may well want to ask the essential question, "Where lies the difference in principle between shooting, hunting with hounds and angling?" They would want to say on Third Reading that there is no essential difference and that to try to distinguish between those things is profoundly and shamefully wrong.

    I do not suppose that my words will prevail, but I desperately hope that hon. Members will rally round the principle that other people's freedoms are our freedoms. We cannot destroy the freedoms of law-abiding minorities without diminishing freedom itself. If right hon. and hon. Members agree with that simple and time-honoured proposition, they will oppose the programme motion and they will oppose the Bill.

    1.40 pm

    I shall speak very briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All politicians like to remain popular with their own side, but I should point out that, on this issue, I am in a minority among Labour Members, although not a persecuted one. I hope that this debate will continue in the good-tempered way in which it started and allow a different opinion to be expressed on the Labour Benches.

    In debating a motion such as this—I oppose it and will vote against it—we sometimes lose track of the issues. My interpretation of what we said in our manifesto differs from the Minister's. We said that we would have a vote and let Parliament decide, but the fact is that the two Houses profoundly disagree.

    I should remind my hon. Friend that the manifesto commitment was to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.

    Yes, but the fact is that the long-running disagreement between the two Houses has led to a conclusion: stalemate. We now have to decide whether this issue is important enough to warrant invoking the Parliament Act.

    When I first heard that we were going to deal with this issue in the manifesto, I regretted the fact, because in my view it should be dealt with through a private Member's Bill. I am sorry that the Government have got so deeply involved, but I applaud the fact that we continue to have free votes.

    My hon. Friend says that he regrets the Government's intervening, but he will recall the time when the whole Tory Cabinet turned up on a Friday and voted against my private Member's Bill.

    My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some of the arguments from the Conservatives on this issue are not very good and listening to them almost guarantees that I will change the way I vote. However, I do not like persecuting minorities and I do not want communities that have values and a way of life that differ from mine to lose them.

    I have a serious worry. I was in the House during the Thatcher years, when disgraceful and dreadful things were done to communities such as mining communities, but I draw a different lesson from that. I do not want to do to rural communities what the Thatcher Government did to the mining communities; two wrongs do not make a right. They may be the minority, but there are many people in this country who take a different view from the majority on country sports. As I explained in the original debate on this issue in 1997, I used to be anti-hunting, but then I thought through why I took that view. I have never hunted and I never want to. I do not shoot. I do not ride. However, I have lived in the country, reared chickens and ducks, and had foxes take them away. As I said in 1997, if someone can prove to me that there is a more humane way of killing a fox than hunting with dogs, I will change my view, but the Burns inquiry and every piece of evidence that I have seen since then has not persuaded me that there is a more humane way.

    Perhaps I might steer my hon. Friend back the procedural matter and the manifesto pledge that Parliament would decide on this issue. It has not been resolved, and a stalemate is not a decision. Does my hon. Friend, who is a good House of Commons man, not see the qualitative difference between huge majorities arrived at through a free vote on the Floor of the House and their being overturned and frustrated by an unelected Chamber?

    As my hon. Friend knows, I have been in this House a long time, and I realise that invoking the Parliament Act is a question of judgment; that judgment is based on the importance that we attach to the issue in question. In my view, this issue is nowhere near important enough to justify invoking that Act.

    It is clear that there is a strong divide between the two Houses. I am not a great supporter of the House of Lords; indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) may know, I voted for its abolition. But the fact is that we have it, and its current role is that of a second Chamber—a Chamber that is perhaps a little more thoughtful and which takes time to contemplate issues. [Interruption.] That has always been its role. Given our current constitution and the fact that we have not abolished the Lords, we should listen to it very seriously when such disagreements arise.

    My great worry is this: after today, when will we next use the Parliament Act? Will we use it when another such issue arises? I have been in the House long enough to remember the long hours that were spent debating abortion. Many people took different views on that issue, which, I am pleased to say, was always dealt with through private Members' Bills. I would be horrified if it were dealt with in the manner adopted in the United States. I sincerely believe that it is in the best interests of this country and of the House if issues such as abortion are dealt with, as they have always been, through private Members' Bills and on a free vote.

    But the only reason that the law on abortion was changed was that the then Government provided time to do so during what was my first Parliament, in 1966; otherwise, the Opposition would have ensured that no such law passed. As my hon. Friend knows, if there is sufficient opposition, no private Member's Bill ever gets through. Is he really saying that, despite free votes in the previous and current Parliaments producing substantial majorities, the will of the House of Commons should be permanently opposed through a permanent veto by the House of Lords? If so, what is the purpose of our debates and decisions?

    I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend—we have been friends for a very long time—but we hold different views on the importance we attach to hunting with dogs. In my view, there is a range of issues, such as abortion, that this House should debate in a very different way. They should be debated through private Members' Bills, because that is a much healthier method.

    I have never regarded this issue as a party political one; indeed, the voting patterns of peers—be they Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat—have been all over the place. I accept that there is less diversity among Labour Members, and I regret that the reality is that most of the Members who support hunting are Conservatives. There would be a freer exchange of views if opinions were more diverse.

    I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's extremely courageous speech. The most thoughtful of the speeches in the other place that I have heard—those expounding the defence of liberty and showing the greatest concern for minorities—were made not by Conservative peers but Labour ones, some of whom were appointed only recently. One of the best speeches was made by Lord Waheed Alli.

    :Noises off, as my hon. Friend would say.

    We are in a very difficult position. I am a political realist, and I know that the steamroller of the Parliament Act will be invoked, but I warn my colleagues that doing so will not do the Labour party or the Labour Government a great deal of good in the long term. At the end of the day, the British public rumbled Thatcherism—I am being very political here—because of the divisive nature of that Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that it was a ghastly, divisive period in our history, but I am surprised that a Labour Government should be taking us back into the same territory. We may be dealing with a different minority, but they still have rights. I do not want to be seen, and I do not want my party to be seen, as willing to ignore other people's minority rights. We do not want that coming back to haunt us—and it will. This will not be resolved by the invocation of the Parliament Act.

    We have a long history as a party that stands up for minorities and goes to the front line to protect their rights, but here we have a different sort of minority that we happen not to agree with, so we are going to trample all over their rights.

    It is a real shame that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that there is outright support for this policy in the Watford party and among my constituents. People want us to settle the issue, because we promised that we would. It is also a matter of trust: in the past two general election campaigns, we said that we would bring the matter to a close. It is absolutely clear that the majority in this House favour a ban on hunting. We can take into account all sorts of minority issues, but at the end of the day, if hunting is wrong, we must take a stand against it. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong and unacceptable in the 21st century in modern Britain and I shall be very pleased to vote to ban it tonight.

    I understand my hon. Friend's view, and recognise the passion with which she holds it. I, too, hold passionate views, but I worry about her conclusion that we should now rush this through with the Parliament Act when we know that a substantial number of people in our country profoundly disagree with it.