House of Commons
Thursday 18 November 2004
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
Prayers
Mr Speaker in the Chair
Oral Answers to Questions
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Secretary of State was asked—
Flood Defence
As you know, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is unable to attend questions this morning, because she is attending the Anglo-French summit.
Subject to the necessary parliamentary procedures, the local flood defence committees in England will be revoked from 1 April 2005.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that in Essex we have a perfectly good local flood defence committee that is not broken and does not need fixing? Given that recent events in the north-east clearly demonstrate that amorphous regional bodies are unloved and have little popular support, will he review his decision to merge us with Norfolk and Suffolk, and instead allow the Essex local flood defence committee to continue in the foreseeable future?
I have thought carefully about the changes to the regional flood defence committees. Without doubt, there is general support for moving to a single-tier flood defence committee, and the argument concerns the most appropriate regional scale. Regional structures are, indeed, the most efficient. I know the Essex local flood defence committee very well. The hon. Gentleman brought a delegation to see me, and I have had many connections with its members over the years. I went to Essex and talked to them, so I am familiar with the interest that elected Members in Essex take in their work. I very much hope that that expertise will continue under the new structure. A powerful argument was made to have a single flood defence committee for the Anglian region as a whole. I accept in part the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The region is the only area to be divided into three regional flood defence committees, thus reflecting the point that he made.
May I remind my hon. Friend that after the devastating floods in York in November 2000, the Government came up with substantial additional funding for flood defence? Because of the separate small committees around Yorkshire, however, counterpart funding from the local authorities did not materialise, as some areas did not think that they were at risk of flooding and did not want to contribute. I warmly welcome the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that all areas contribute equally to flood defences. Flood defences serve upland areas, because the water drains away from them through areas that are at risk of flooding.
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. Indeed, he made it powerfully in the debate about adequate resources for the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee. The changes that we have implemented, including the block grant to the Environment Agency, will address many of the concerns that he has so ably expressed.
Will the Minister pay tribute to Councillor Ray Howard, who is a major player in the Essex flood defence committee? What is his assessment of the effect on flood defences in Castle Point of the additional 4,000 houses that the Government are forcing the town to build?
I am more than happy to pay tribute to Ray, whom I have met on a number of occasions. He has enormous experience in flood defence matters and I hope that he continues to make a contribution. As for proposed developments, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have revised planning policy guidance 25, which requires careful assessment of new developments in relation to flood risk. The condition of flood walls, continued investment and potential risks to life and property will feature very strongly in any future planning proposals in the hon. Gentleman's area.
What assistance can my hon. Friend's Department give with the better co-ordination of activities of highways authorities and water companies in tackling the growing problem, particularly in urban areas, of flash flooding?
Yes, it is a major problem. In the floods of 2000, 40 per cent. of the flooding was from non-river sources and was caused, for example, by blocked drains on highways. The issue is being addressed by the Environment Agency, as well as by the regulator in the periodic review, PR 04. Matters such as sewer flooding are a major concern for many hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take that work into account.
Climate Change
The annual report of the global atmosphere research programme for 2002–03 outlines research activities on the impacts of climate change. The report is available on the Department's website, but I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library for the benefit of hon. Members.
The Government are rightly making climate change a priority of their G8 presidency next year, if they win the election. Given that we are missing our targets on renewables, combined heat and power output is down, the energy efficiency commitment has been downgraded and, worst of all, carbon emissions are rising, should the Minister not put his own house in order before he starts to lecture the rest of the world? Does he think that he will hit his 2010 target for CO 2 emissions and, if so, will he set out very clearly how he expects to achieve that?
We have set out precisely how we intend to meet the climate change programme. While I do not dispute that there are challenges, this country's record on climate change is the best of any of the G8 nations. The UK is rightly seen as a leader on this issue. We are expanding the percentage of energy from renewables, and we are making progress on the introduction of carbon trading, which we pioneered. I believe that the 2010 target is achievable.
To do more on the renewable energy part of the agenda, can my hon. Friend give some help to one of the farmers whose land partly covers my constituency and who has been growing renewable crops for 10 years, but has not sold a single twig? He has been given almost £1 million of potential grant from the Government, which shows their commitment to the issue, but he is having serious problems getting his business off the ground. Will my hon. Friend talk with his colleagues in the DTI to get this farmer the help that he needs?
As my hon. Friend rightly recognises, considerable funds are available for bio-energy and biomass energy. That includes giving support to the installation of equipment—generators, combined heat and power systems and central heating systems— that can use bio-energy. One significant development that has considerable potential is the co-firing of biofuel by coal-burning power stations such as Drax. That could present a long-term opportunity for farmers and a way of reducing carbon dioxide from coal-burning power stations.
As it is universally accepted that there can be no effective solution to the problem of climate change without the wholehearted participation of the United States, why has the Prime Minister made so little effort to use his unique relationship to persuade the Americans to sign the Kyoto treaty?
That is not the case. At the recent meeting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with President Bush—he was the first leader to meet the newly elected President—climate change was one of the issues on the agenda. However, I do not think that people should delude themselves that the Americans—the President and Congress—have set their face against ratifying the Kyoto agreement. That does not mean that achievements cannot be made by reducing domestic emissions and investing in new technologies. Several US states are interested in introducing carbon trading. California and the north-west states are members of a group known as the climate group, which was launched by my right hon. Friend. We have a great deal of connection with those elements in the US who want to go further than the current Administration, and we should encourage them to do so.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the recent flood maps produced by the Environment Agency, which predicts as a flood threat the river Calder, which runs through the Sellafield nuclear plant. Does he agree that it would be foolish to back nuclear power as the saviour technology in combating climate change if one of its main sites, and the site where any new nuclear reactor is likely to be built, is under water?
It certainly would not benefit anyone to build nuclear power stations in areas that are a major flood risk. That is taken into account at existing sites. The issue of nuclear power is being addressed in our energy White Paper. We have no current plans for nuclear power. We believe that there is considerable potential for renewables and new technologies, and that those will probably bring a better return than the huge investment that would inevitably be required for a nuclear power programme.
The Minister's Department is doing its best to make climate change a priority, both internationally and within the Government, but does the Minister not feel a little unhappy when the rug is pulled from underneath him by the Prime Minister, who last month overruled the Department by sanctioning an increase of almost 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to be emitted under the EU emissions trading scheme? How can that be described by the Secretary of State in her press release as good news for the environment?
The Prime Minister's opinions should not be presented in such a simplistic way. The DTI has carried out detailed modelling of emissions by UK industry. That modelling did not exist before and is quite complex and sophisticated, but the final figure is a 5.2 per cent. decrease on business as usual, which is one of the biggest decreases in the whole of the European Union and takes us way beyond our Kyoto target—the only EU country to achieve that.
In our response to climate change, the Department's recent consultation, "Making Space for Water", emphasises two separate challenges: one is preserving a finite and valuable resource; the other is protecting people from unexpected flooding. Can my hon. Friend confirm that land management practices in the future will be a vital way of meeting both those challenges?
Yes, I can confirm that. A range of management practices have to be put in place. They include developing whole river basin catchment plans, so that we have a much better understanding of the issue and a more integrated and holistic approach to water management.
EU Sugar Beet Regime
In the past three months my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who leads on these matters, has had discussions with the president of the National Farmers Union, Tim Bennett. He has also had discussions with Tate and Lyle and with representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that are affected by the present regime. There are no immediate plans for local NFU representative meetings.
Is the Minister aware that for every job that sugar beet supports on farms, there are probably six or seven more jobs in servicing and in the beet factories? That is a lot of jobs in a county such as Norfolk, which grows half the country's beet. Much of that beet is grown not on large farms, but on small farms and county council smallholdings. Given that the UK is a net importer of sugar, surely any cut in its beet quota, which would devastate small farms, would be grossly unfair?
I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the current situation is unacceptable and that doing nothing is not an option. The EU price is three times the world level for sugar, and that is not sustainable. It is therefore important that we move as quickly as possible to the reforms that are needed, in order that everybody knows what they are doing and can plan their future business.
If my right hon. Friend meets the farmers of Norfolk or any NFU representatives, will he politely suggest to them that there is a bigger agenda out there, which must include fairness to the developing world? Of all commodities, sugar is the biggest scandal. The way in which we treat the cane-producing countries is outrageous. Some of us met farmers from the third world this week, and they told us clearly what reforms they need and must have.
Yes, I too have met representatives of countries affected in that way. I have also met farmers in the course of visits, which makes me aware of the problems of adjustment facing farmers in this country. The starting point for reform must clearly be the approach agreed by the European Council in June 2003. The findings of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were very similar to those of the Council, so we know the basis of the way forward, and change is vital.
Pest Control (Barnet)
Since my hon. Friend first raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State back in July, we have been in communication with Barnet council to assess whether it is meeting its obligations under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949. Where a council is found not be meeting its obligations, the Government have powers under the Act to order it to do so.
Since I first raised the matter, I have had a further 21 complaints from all over my constituency with rapidly increasing frequency, which is perhaps not surprising, bearing in mind that a single pair of rats can lead to 15,000 offspring in a year. Short of renaming Hendon "Hamelin" and my hon. Friend donning a pied piper outfit, can he do something to shake the Tory council out of its complacency? The default powers must be used to protect my constituents from the growing and breeding problem of the terrible rat infestation from which we are suffering.
I take note of what my hon. Friend says. Since he became so energetically engaged in the issue, we have asked the Central Science Laboratory to give us its view as to whether his local Conservative council is carrying out its duties properly. It has asked the council a series of detailed questions, a copy of which I have passed on to him. I am sure he will hold his local council to account, as will we, if it does not answer those questions properly.
Order. Can the hon. Gentleman tie his question into Barnet council? If so, I call him.
Barnet, like all areas, has pests that need controlling, and for some parts of our country it is the number of deer that needs to be controlled. If the current method is to be banned, does the Minister really have a plan for a deer management scheme on Exmoor?
You are being very generous in allowing me to answer this question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are working on a new deer management strategy, and it will not rely on stag hunting.
Waste Management
Energy from waste cannot contribute towards waste reduction, but does contribute towards more sustainable waste management and the UK's landfill directive targets. Energy from waste is a viable waste management option, as demonstrated by its position in the waste hierarchy—below minimisation, re-use, recycling and composting, but above disposal and landfill.
If incinerators are to be built, what is the Minister doing to encourage the construction of combined heat and power plants, which have the advantage of offering cheap power and heat to local communities, and the added advantage of reducing the amount of waste to be taken to landfill?
I accept that if there is to be an energy-from-waste plant, for which a number of designs exist, combined heat and power is to be encouraged, and the Government have programmes and procedures for doing that. Through the waste and resources action programme we have supported new technologies as thermal treatments, such as pyrolisis, which also gasify waste, capture the energy and often produce residue that can also be refuse-derived waste. We are interested in all forms of waste treatments and it is up to local authorities to choose the system that they think is most appropriate.
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Government have done a great deal to stimulate energy-from-waste projects, it often becomes a matter of planning permission? Whether it is an incinerator or pyrolisis, or a different method of mechanical or biological treatments, so often a nimbyish attitude towards such a project prevents us from moving in a positive direction and the contribution that such technology could make is stilted.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and on many occasions substantial investment in waste treatment facilities, which are not always thermal treatments or incineratory—it can be a range of facilities—is significantly delayed. Planning policy guidance 10 is under review, with consideration being given to waste disposal infrastructure, and we are keen to encourage a regional strategic approach. We do not want to ignore people's legitimate concerns, but nor do we want undue delays in terms of major investment, which is essential to a move towards sustainable waste management.
The Minister is well aware of public concerns about the safety of incinerators, and studies show that results from biannual testing for dioxins in incinerators can be up to 50 times different from those provided by continuous monitoring. The matter was raised with the Minister some time ago and he said that he would look into continuous monitoring. Can he give us an update on the progress that is being made?
Yes, I can. It is a perfectly reasonable point to make that in relation to incineration capacity there should be regular monitoring of outputs. However, there is a huge difference between modern incinerators and some of the older ones in relation to their outputs and dioxin levels. The hon. Lady will also be aware that the Government have commissioned detailed research into the health effects of all methods of waste disposal, which also helps to inform this debate and the kind of choices that local authorities may want to make.
I am rather sceptical about the Government's soft-shoe shuffle towards waste incineration, but at least one form is acceptable, which is in use in Leicestershire, where 20 farmers in a co-operative are using the waste products from timber processing to produce wood pellets for incineration and heating in schools. Does the Minister agree that that is an acceptable use, and will he visit the Orchard school in Castle Donington with me to have a look at its new boiler system, one of several in the county, which I switched on just weeks ago?
I am always interested in looking at boilers, and I shall certainly talk to my hon. Friend about that. I agree that that is an innovative and useful way of utilising waste wood in relation to energy capture. I am also impressed with the very large biodigester that has been located in Leicester—another alternative way of dealing with waste.
Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain the implications for energy from waste of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003? Can he tell the House whether he is blowing hot and cold on combined heat and power? Will he seek to extend plants such as the SELCHIP—south-east London combined heat and power—energy from waste plant to combined heat and power, enabling that plant to live up to its name?
Large emitters will fall within the scope of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003. In relation to combined heat and power, the Government have made it clear that we want to encourage a higher proportion of good-quality combined heat and power. There may be some small measures in relation to carbon trading that can help in expanding plants and giving them some encouragement, and I hope that that happens.
Fisheries
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Ross Finnie and I met UK industry leaders in October. Mr. Finnie and I also met industry representatives at the successful launch in Edinburgh on 4 November of the North Sea Regional Advisory Council. We expect to have further discussions in the margins of the Fisheries Council next week.
I thank the Minister for that answer. I know that the process of engagement with the industry will be ongoing over the next few weeks, but may I urge him to recognise that that process should not end at the Council door, but continue throughout the negotiation process, and that the fishing industry's views should be sought before any deal is done? In that way, we might avoid the unintended consequences from the deal that we had last year, whereby fishermen in my constituency were left with a permit scheme that was both bureaucratic and, frankly, unworkable.
Yes, I agree. I know very well the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes in his constituency, having visited the Shetland islands myself in the summer. He is right that it is important that we work closely with the industry, as we are doing not only through the new regional advisory councils, but through the science fisheries partnership, investing £1 million every year in collaborative work to try to bring science and the fishing industry closer together. That collaborative work is important. It is not always the case that we can do what the fishing industry wants, but it is still very important that we work together closely to get the best deal for the UK.
Will my hon. Friend bend his efforts to ensure that the Commission's proposals are based on accurate up-to-date stock figures that take into account the effects of decommissioning and the conservation measures taken so far, rather than the worst-case scenario of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which the Commission seems to prefer? Secondly, the industry would want to him to recognise that, while the British industry has taken the biggest hit on decommissioning and reduction of the white fish effort, other fishing nations are still building up their white fish effort. That is totally unacceptable to the British industry.
I certainly accept that we have to take account of the most up-to-date figures. My hon. Friend is right that, because of the decline of the cod stocks, it is the UK white fish fleet, which has traditionally relied on cod and has the biggest quota of cod, that has suffered the most. I suspect that at the forthcoming December Council, there will be some difficult decisions for the Spanish and others about hake, but we will certainly make it plain to the Commission, as we did at the launch of the regional advisory council, that it is important that it takes into account the decommissioning that has been so painful for his fleets and so many others in the rest of the UK.
The Minister may know that the Canadian Fisheries Minister visited last week and had a meeting with the all-party fisheries group. One of the points discussed was the effect of the closure of the Canadian grand bank cod grounds on the cod fishery, but it appears that the long-term closure has had no appreciable effect on cod stocks in Canadian waters. Given that, can the Minister tell us what his attitude will be to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommendation on the closure of the North sea cod fishery, which will have a dramatic impact on the Scottish haddock fishery?
The hon. Gentleman may well be aware, if he has studied the history of the grand banks of Canada, of the scientific consensus that the reason cod stocks have not recovered is that the decision to close the fishery was made too late. If cod stocks are depleted to that extent, they often do not recover. Instead, there has been a growth in prawn stocks, which the fishing industry has been able to exploit.
I shall certainly make the hon. Gentleman's point during the December negotiations, but he should note that for the past two years ICES has advised a total closure of the North sea cod fishery. That advice has not been followed in the Council of Ministers.
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to get our fisheries policy right, we shall need very good information from our scientists? Scientists at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—CEFAS—in Lowestoft are unhappy about the fact that their rates of pay are significantly below those of my hon. Friend's officials in the Department. Will my hon. Friend look into that? I would not wish the advice that he receives to be impaired by a work force who are becoming really fed up with not being treated very well.
I certainly undertake to look into the matter. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend's constituents do at CEFAS, and the invaluable advice that they give not just to us but to other decision-makers in Europe and the rest of the world.
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the growing improvement in relations and co-operation between fishermen and scientists, despite the pay levels. As he knows, however, we are one month away from making momentous decisions once again on the future of the fishing industry, and the European Commission has still not published stock assessment or effort control proposals. Is not leaving the opportunity for proper consultation and discussion with the industry until that late hour in December a recipe for the kind of mistakes that the December Council has made all too often?
I take the hon. Gentleman's point to some extent. One of the reasons for our attempt to achieve multi-annual recovery plans was not having to go through that annual process, but ICES reports in October, which gives both us and the Commission a fairly tight time frame. That does not mean that we cannot have discussions with the industry based on our best guesstimate of what the Commission will recommend as a result of scientific advice, and we have had such discussions both before and since ICES reported.
Last year's Council resulted in a most impractical scheme in the North sea. The Minister did not consult the numerous British fishermen who are currently dotted around various hotels in Brussels waiting for news. Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that this year, before accepting any proposals, he will discuss them in detail and in a practical manner with those fishermen? He did not give such a clear reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
It is not true that we did not consult fishery representatives during last year's Council. I should like to think that we have improved the process this year, not only through the personal contact that I have mentioned between leading fishing industry representatives and the Secretary of State and me, but through my regular, intensive contact with senior fisheries officials. What I cannot guarantee—and I hope the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to—is a veto for the fishing industry on any decision that we might make.
Rural Strategy
We are making very good progress. Last month I announced the launch of seven local pathfinder partnerships, which will test practical ways of improving local delivery. Indeed, the pathfinder in the north-west includes the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. We hope to publish a draft Bill in the new year, and we are also making good progress towards setting up the integrated agency and the new countryside agency.
It is interesting that the Minister thinks that he is making good progress. I commend to him the evidence of the centre for rural economy at Newcastle university to the Select Committee, which is inquiring into the matter. The centre has criticised the Minister's strategy for lacking vision and clarity.
The Minister is currently establishing regional rural priority boards. Will they have rurally based business people on them, and how will their work under the aegis of Government offices relate to the economic development work being embarked on by the regional development agencies?
I will read with interest any comments made by Newcastle university, but it is plain wrong to say that there is a lack of vision because we have a clear vision of a sustainable future for rural communities. We seek to engage with rural businesses in that work. At the beginning of this week, I met business representatives in the west midlands specifically to discuss engagement with rural business. We will provide details of the priority boards in due course, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we seek to engage with business and extend all aspects of sustainable development—economic, as well as environmental and social.
We are rapidly moving towards a situation in which payments to farmers are decoupled from production. What assessment have the Government made of the risk that UK agricultural output will fall dramatically over the next five years?
That is an interesting question that goes much wider than the question tabled by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). We have, of course, assessed the impact of changes on farming and food. Modernisation will challenge the farming industry, and that is why we established the policy commission on the future of farming and food, with which the farming industry has engaged strongly—indeed, Sir Donald Curry led the commission from within the industry.
Has my right hon. Friend seen the speculation about the subsidies that individuals receive under the present scheme and whether those individuals will continue to receive the same subsidies under the decoupled scheme? Although such matters are private—unfortunately, they do not fall under freedom of information legislation—it has been speculated that one individual in this country gets £20 million a year in subsidy and that a number of others get more than £10 million. Will those individuals continue to receive those subsidies just for keeping their farms pretty and cutting the grass?
As my hon. Friend anticipates, I will not comment on individual payments. At the moment, farm incomes are increasing by about 15 per cent. and the benefits of decoupling are beginning to work through into the farming industry's performance. We are seeking to strengthen the weaker aspects of the rural economy through the rural development regulation.
Flood Defence
We are implementing the outcomes of the flood and coastal defence funding review. Those include making the Environment Agency responsible for all rivers that present the greatest flood risk; providing the Environment Agency with a single stream of Government funding with streamlined scheme approval arrangements; and creating a single tier of flood defence committees.
I am not sure that the Minister's answer is particularly enlightening. He could usefully learn from Lord Falkland's dictum:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a risk that Government fiat is a move away from the old system of local control and that local knowledge and expertise about the problems of particular localities will be lost? That will be done in the name of the Government's obsession with regionalism, which few people understand and even fewer people want.
A river catchment area is not a political or regional boundary, and the argument for a regional approach is strong and practical. Having said that, I concede that I do not want to lose local knowledge. The regional flood defence committees have a majority representation from local authorities. DEFRA also makes a number of appointments, and we try to reflect the range of interests in flood defence and flood defence management so that we have balanced flood defence committees with broad local knowledge. However, the main motivation is efficiency of delivery.
I welcome the changes that my hon. Friend describes. However, he will recall the terrible floods that we had in Northampton and may be aware that criticisms were made of the way in which the flood defence committee's management systems worked, in that they tended to favour agricultural, rather than urban and residential areas. Can he explain how his changes will give a better and clearer voice to urban and residential property owners and landowners, especially in an area that has been designated for growth and where there will be real pressures on the flood plains?
I understand very well the point that my hon. Friend makes. The Northampton floods were a seminal event that were responsible for significant changes in the way we approach flood management and defence. As I say, local authorities will have the majority, and we would expect them to have a reasonable cross-section of ability and representation. However, if there was an undue representation of agricultural or farming interests, that could be balanced by DEFRA's appointments.
The Minister will be aware that, in many low-lying parts of rural Lincolnshire, efficient flood defence by local internal drainage boards is essential. Will he confirm to the House and to the people of Lincolnshire that DEFRA will pressure the Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that Lincolnshire local authorities are fully reimbursed for the levy costs so that council tax increases can be kept to a minimum and that there will be no reduction in flood defences through the IDBs as a result of the funding cuts?
As vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, I can claim a considerable knowledge of drains that will match that of anyone in this House.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have to strike the correct balance in the contribution that we make to the Environment Agency and the internal drainage boards in terms of their levy-raising powers. Of course, that gives them some independence in making choices that reflect their own needs. I have always thought that the internal drainage boards do an important job and are very good at reflecting local knowledge and needs.
One critical context for making decisions about how to allocate resources in flood defence will be the new fluvial strategies, three of which are being prepared in my constituency, one of the joys of South Derbyshire being the number of rivers that run through it. Communities such as Ambaston, on the Derwent, Shardlow, Willington and Barrow upon Trent, on the Trent, and Hilton, Hatton and Egginton, on the Dove, are all waiting anxiously for the publication of those strategies. Can we try to ensure that they move with some speed towards their conclusion so that we can start to see some action on the needs of those communities?
I know that my hon. Friend has been very much involved in this issue and has raised the potential impact on his local communities with the Department on several occasions. When I last spoke to the Environment Agency, I was told that the strategies are very close to completion. My hon. Friend will understand that, to provide effective flood defence, it is necessary to understand the whole catchment area and the nature of the river or estuary. The approach that the agency has taken in that sophisticated modelling and planning is exactly the right way forward, and I am sure that the report will be available in the very near future.
Is the Minister aware that the new single-tier system that is being introduced will create a committee stretching from the Thames estuary to Bournemouth and that that will happen at crucial time for my constituency? The Minister may know that East head has recently been breached. If it is washed away completely, that will shortly threaten villages in my constituency, including West Wittering, with flooding. In the past, he has been very helpful in considering problems in Chichester. Will he now commit to looking urgently and extremely carefully at how we can assist the agencies and the flood defence committee to ensure that East head is not further eroded?
I recently spoke to the Environment Agency about East head, and I understand that, although there may be the risk of a breach, there is no immediate threat to properties in the area. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
In the longer term, I revert to the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). A detailed study of the tidal conditions in the bay and the effect on East head is under way and the agency is considering it. It has been funded to do that. Before taking appropriate action, one has to understand the natural forces and the pressures on them.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about regional flood defence committees. Most parts of the country have had large regional areas that have worked effectively for some time. However, I am aware of specific issues in Sussex and I understand that they are being considered.
Rural Payments Agency
I meet the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency frequently to ensure that its programme of modernisation proceeds at a brisk pace.
My right hon. Friend knows that the RPA faces a big change programme against a background of new and different ways of paying farmers and landowners that come into force next year. Is he confident, and will he give an assurance, that single farm payments will be made in December 2005?
My confidence is growing as the meetings proceed and I can see each step of the way tested. We aim to make payments as early as possible in the window for payments, which starts, as my hon. Friend suggests, on 1 December 2005.
As the Minister said, that window is not even expected to open until 1 December 2005. This year's payments are already later than last year's. Farmers face one of their worst years ever, with not only low commodity prices but, in many parts of the country, the consequences of a difficult harvest. Does not the Minister understand the cash-flow implications, which are estimated at some £50 million in East Anglia alone, of the delay in payments? Does he accept that anything less than annual payments puts an untold burden on farmers when they are rightly trying to face up to what everybody, including the Minister, accepts are massive changes in the future of farming in this country?
My postbag, especially from Members of Parliament, reflects a considerable drop in complaints about the RPA and an increase in satisfaction with its performance. The payment window opens on 1 December next year and we are doing all that we can to ensure that everything is in place and works effectively. We are validating and testing everything, from the rural land register, which went live on 6 September, to implementation. All that is due to be completed by the summer. The hon. Gentleman's lack of confidence is therefore unfortunate and misplaced.
In the discussions that my right hon. Friend is holding with the chief executive about new technology, will he examine businesses that are linked to farming? Following the BSE crisis, they have still not received the full pay-out that they would have expected, to the extent that the Inland Revenue is seeking to reclaim money. Will he ascertain whether getting the payments made can be joined up across Departments?
I am happy to examine any individual cases that my hon. Friend may have. In general, we are trying to ensure that the system is joined up so that we do not have some of the dysfunctional interfaces that occurred in the past. That is at the centre of what we are trying to achieve.
Rural Development Regulation
The Commission's proposals for the new rural development regulation were published in July 2004 for programmes running from 2007 to 2013. We have been negotiating—and continue to do so—for further simplification of the rules; a better focus of the EU rural development expenditure on the delivery of real public benefits; a clearer contribution with shared environmental objectives; and fairer allocation of EU money. We are concerned about the fairer allocation of EU money to this country, of course.
I am worried about the impact of the draft regulation on upland farmers. The Minister knows that less favoured area status, which applies to 80 per cent. of Wales and almost all of my constituency, has been essential to support the sort of upland farming that has given us magnificent scenery that we can exploit for tourism. It has also given us a magnificent upland environment, which is an important part of the way in which we tackle climate change and the future of agriculture in this country. Will he give some assurances about how upland farming can be supported and the Government's attitude to the regulation so that we can maintain viable upland farming throughout the United Kingdom and the essential environment and landscape that is so important for us all?
The hon. Gentleman is correct to spell out the challenge in respect of upland farming, which we are seeking to address very carefully. In relation to Wales, that is a matter for the National Assembly, and I believe that Carwyn Jones will be in Brussels on Monday when further discussions are taking place. The consultation in England and that undertaken in Wales by the Assembly have both closed recently. We will consider the outcomes and I am sure that there will be discussion between us and the Assembly's representatives, which will include a focus on upland farming.
As I understand it, the draft regulation is accompanied by proposals on common agricultural policy farming, which include the process of revising the designation of less favoured areas. Bearing in mind what DEFRA approved just a few months ago, which the Secretary of State announced, is the Minister aware that clarity and early explanation of what is meant by this are vital for those areas?
As I understand it, the Commission has proposed that member states redesignate their less favoured areas, removing socio-economic factors from the definitions. That arises from criticism from the European Court of Auditors. We have supported the proposal. We do not expect it to lead to significant changes in the designation of less favoured areas in the UK, but under current Commission proposals there is considerable scope for socio-economic objectives to be met through axis 3 funding. We are also pushing for the criteria for designation to be strongly linked to land management benefits and the positive environmental contribution that the programmes seek to achieve.
Landfill Tax Escalator
We expect to announce a programme of measures shortly that will recycle additional landfill tax revenues—£284 million over three years from April 2005—back to business by providing support that specifically targets resource efficiency, waste minimisation and diversion away from landfill.
Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the importance of the initiative in ensuring that business plays a full and important part in the recycling, reuse and minimisation process? Will he consider prioritising funding for schemes that promote recycling and trading in materials between businesses where a material is a waste product of one company's processes, but might constitute raw materials for those of another?
My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. As part of the agreed split on the income from the landfill tax, a lot of it will go towards helping businesses with resource management in the most general sense—energy waste resource management. The idea of one company's waste being used as another's raw material is a good one. I will certainly consider it seriously.
Sewerage Regulation
Sewerage undertakers are under a statutory duty under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991—enforceable by the Secretary of State or the director general of water services—to provide, improve and extend public sewers and to maintain those sewers to ensure the effectual drainage of their area.
Some progress is being made on odour pollution from sewage works following court action and an odour abatement notice being made in south-west London in respect of Thames Water and the Mogden plant. Will the Minister acknowledge that, for the court action to be effective, the Government will have to specify the standards that must be met and the water regulator will have to approve the necessary capital investment? Will he take action on those points?
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that action is being taken on that and he will be aware that my noble Friend Lord Whitty paid a visit to his local sewage works to consider some of the odour problems. Enforcement action was taken in November. We are in the process of producing a code of practice that lays out those standards, which the hon. Gentleman has asked for. That will be a useful framework for the sewerage industry to work within as regards the standards that we want to be applied to odour control.
My hon. Friend has already claimed the title of King Drain this morning, so I wonder whether he can do a similar job on sewers. Many Members will think that unadopted sewers, and the role of water utilities in them, are the biggest issue. In Dragonby in my constituency, which used to be in my hon. Friend's constituency, the sewers that are part of the former steel houses, which are now privately owned, cause regular blockages and problems. When does he expect to do something about that, with the water utilities, so that the blight on many of my constituents, and other hon. Members' constituents, can be ended?
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As he rightly says, I know the situation in Dragonby, although it appears that the sewers have got worse since my hon. Friend inherited the village. The whole issue of private sewers is very complicated. We want to address it, and we have made clear in relation to the report that we commissioned the options that we can consider. That report showed that up to 50 per cent. of the population are connected directly or indirectly to private sewers, so it is a major issue. I will attend the all-party sewers and sewerage group meeting on 2 December, at which I hope to outline the steps that we can take, the kind of problems faced and some of the solutions that we can consider.
Is it right that, in 2004, many residents still suffer internal sewerage flooding in their homes and gardens? What power has the Minister to ensure that water utility companies put repairs in process immediately?
Yes, sewer flooding is an appalling experience for people, particularly for those who suffer it repeatedly. There has been some recent case law on the responsibility of sewer companies in relation to repeat sewer flooding, and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that, as it might be of use to him in relation to his constituency case. More generally, sewer flooding was a feature of the ministerial guidance to the regulator in relation to his current job of setting the prices for the next five-year period. I am confident that the regulator, who is well aware of these issues and has received direct representations from Members of the House, will bear that in mind in approving companies' business plans for that period.
Fallen Stock
None. Other operators in the fallen stock collection and disposal industry have consistently maintained that they have sufficient capacity to deal with additional quantities of fallen stock.
Is the Minister aware that the Mendip farmers hunt recently opened a facility, built to Ministry specifications, to take fallen stock from the whole Mendip area that will be jeopardised if hunting is banned? Will he state clearly whether rendering and incineration capacity is adequate to cope with the national fallen stock collection service, which is much delayed but is coming into effect later this month? Alternatively, will that shortage of capacity create problems in line with the general ineptitude and incompetence that has surrounded this whole issue and the way it has been dealt with by his Department?
No. The National Fallen Stock Company running the scheme is satisfied that the rendering and incineration capacity is sufficient to cope with the stock.
Fruit Farming
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funds a substantial research and development programme that is of benefit to fruit farmers. Growers are also eligible for assistance under the England rural development programme.
The Minister will be aware that fruit farmers are feeling the squeeze at the moment. Supermarkets are bearing down on them, which is affecting their income, while at the same time the Agricultural Wages Board has awarded a series of above-inflation wage increases. Given that we now have a national minimum wage, why does agriculture, and agriculture alone, still have a wages board?
It has been the view of successive Ministers and Departments that the Agricultural Wages Board should continue. There are many differences between agriculture and horticulture. Horticulture has never had the distorting subsidies that agriculture has had. We contribute to the industry as a whole through the research programme, worth some £2.5 million this year. We want the industry to continue to be a success.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a point about which I have already forewarned the relevant Minister's office.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the last oral questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 21 October, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), said, in reference to the foot and mouth video of Burnside farm,
"I have not seen the video".—[Official Report, 21 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 1006.]
Later, he did not refute my contention that no Minister had seen it. In a written question on 9 November, I asked the Minister when DEFRA first obtained a copy of the video. He answered
"DEFRA recently obtained copies of the video when it was referred to in correspondence received on 30 September 2004."—[Official Report, 9 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 577W.]
Yesterday, Lord Whitty, another DEFRA Minister, wrote to my noble Friend Baroness Byford and made statements that contradict the Under-Secretary of State. First, he stated:
"I confirm that I saw part of the video at the time of Mr. Waugh's trial".
Secondly, he said:
"The first record DEFRA has of receiving a copy of the video . . . is at the beginning of February 2003."
Both Ministers cannot be right. Would it be in order for the Under-Secretary of State to explain why Ministers disagree in explaining what increasingly looks like a cover-up, and to apologise for—no doubt inadvertently—misleading the House?
I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will know how to follow up his inquiries, but it is not for me to ask a Minister to apologise.
But he is in the Chamber.
Order. I know that the Minister is in the Chamber, but it is not for me to pursue an apology.
Come on, Ben.
Order. It was a point of order, and I am responding to it.
Point of order, Mr. Letwin? [Interruption.] Mr. Heald.
I think that Mr. Letwin may be a little thinner than I am, Mr. Speaker. My point of order has to do with the amendments tabled by the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, in lieu of the Lords amendments passed last night. The new proposals were made available in the Vote Office at 12.5 pm—that is, 25 minutes ago. They raise issues that hon. Members of all parties may wish to consider. In those circumstances, would you be prepared to suspend the sitting for a short period, so that hon. Members can familiarise themselves with the new proposals, which are very different from what has gone before?
No, I will not suspend the sitting.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the very serious events last night in the Bernabéu stadium, which followed similar incidents in the England under-21 international—
Order. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of that, as he submitted an urgent question on it. I refused the urgent question, so I will not take a point of order on the matter.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a genuine point of order. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] It follows on from the point raised my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. That, too, was a genuine point of order, as was, I am sure, the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). Will you confirm that it would be in order, in principle, to table manuscript amendments to these very late Government motions? The new proposals mean that those of us who wish to oppose a ban on hunting face difficult decisions. If there is to be a ban, we would want it to be extended for the maximum period before implementation. Are manuscript amendments acceptable in principle? Will you explain how we can submit such amendments if we are to move immediately to the business in hand?
The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for some time. He will know that I will look at and consider manuscript amendments, but that whether I accept them is another matter.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, Doug Smith, chief executive of the Child Support Agency, resigned. Earlier that day, he told the Select Committee on Work and Pensions that the CSA has no contingency plan if the computer system proves to be beyond repair. Have you had any notice from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that he intends to come to the House today to explain what the Government's plans now are? We all have constituents who are not getting money because the CSA system does not work and the Government are ultimately responsible for the shambles.
I have had no such notice.
Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have decided that the House must go ahead immediately with the Hunting Bill, but can you give any guidance for the future on the amount of time that the Government should allow hon. Members when amendments in lieu are tabled? Twenty-five minutes are not enough. Although I fully understand and accept your decision and the reasons for it, some guidance for the future would be most welcome.
I am not worried about the future; I am worried about getting through today.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of those present have been Members of Parliament for a considerable number of years but have never seen the Parliament Act invoked—[Hon Members: "Yes, we have."] There are new Members who have not seen it. I ask for some explanation of the Speaker's role in the Parliament Act.
Old Members and new Members can always go to the Library—it is very conveniently placed only a few yards away and I often use it. It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to make that request on behalf of Members, but that is why the Library exists. It is very useful.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you prepared to consider a manuscript amendment that would allow two votes, one on the first part of amendment a and another on the second?
If the hon. Gentleman puts a manuscript amendment to me, I shall consider it.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have two matters to raise. First, I should be grateful if you asked the Minister in charge of the Hunting Bill to explain how the commitment that he has repeatedly given at the Dispatch Box, and therefore in the House, that Labour Members of Parliament have a free vote is compatible with the activity of Government Whips trying to get Labour Members to vote for a specific amendment?
Secondly, on a point of order directly for you, last night, when at a high level assurances were given to right hon. and hon. Labour Members—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Hon. Members should contain themselves: I am asking the Speaker to clarify procedure. Given that we are now in a position other than the one set out in the assurances given last night to right hon. and hon. Labour Members regarding the Government's view on the implementation date, and given that there are two amendments dealing with the implementation date, one tabled by the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality and the other by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), I seek your guidance on whether, if either amendment is carried, it will affect the integrity of the Bill in relation to the invocation of the Parliament Act?
On the second point, the House makes decisions; I am then guided by the Parliament Act in working out how to proceed from there. As for Whips' activities, Whips are always active and hon. Members know how to handle them.
Further to the first part of the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), Mr. Speaker. I thought that all my right hon. and hon. Friends were aware of this fact, but let me make it absolutely clear: for Labour Members this is a free vote.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to one or two people sitting round me in the House, and it is clear that everyone has a different interpretation of what is happening. We recognise that we are in an unusual position, and we are depending on you to guide us to ensure that at the end of the day, this Hunting Bill is carried. [Interruption.] That is the will of the House. People in this Chamber believe that there is a rat that smells, and—
Hunting Bill (Procedure) (No. 3)
I beg to move the Hunting Bill (Procedure) (No. 3) motion, standing in my name and that of the Leader of the House. It might assist the House if I read out the terms of the motion, so that they are clear to all Members. The—
I have taken a point of order from the hon. Gentleman. I hope that this is a different one.
On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would be helpful if we knew for how long this debate can continue.
The motion is not debatable. The Question will be put forthwith.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), through his point of order, makes it clear why it will assist the House if I read out—
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is rising to make different a point of order.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of what you have just said, I am surely correct in assuming that it would not be appropriate for the Minister to participate in such a debate, given that the Question has to be put immediately.
The Minister should confine himself to reading the motion.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. The motion states:
That the Orders of 15th September and 16th November shall be supplemented as follows:
1. At this day's sitting proceedings on consideration of any Lords message relating to the Hunting Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after commencement.
2. For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall put the following questions forthwith (and no others)-
(1) any question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided, and
(2) the question on any motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
3.
Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Order of 16th November shall apply.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The—
Order. I am putting the Question.
The House proceeded to a Division.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This Division seems to have gone on for 17 minutes. I think that there is an argument in the Government Lobby. Can it be investigated?
Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to find out what is happening.
The Clerk has informed me that a number of manuscript amendments have been tabled and, of course, I have promised hon. Members that I will give them consideration. In view of the number of manuscript amendments, I am going to suspend the House until 1.40 pm.
Sitting suspended.
Orders of the Day
Hunting Bill
On resuming—
Lords message considered.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is in his place. Has he given you any indication that he intends to make a statement on what has obviously gone wrong today? Does he accept that this is no way to run a national Parliament, let alone a ping-pong tournament?
Nothing has gone wrong—absolutely nothing. I am running the proceedings in the House.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. A paper is going around that I have not had the opportunity to see, but if any amendment to the Bill is carried today and if the two Houses cannot reach agreement on the Bill at the end of the day, will you be able to invoke the Parliament Act?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order. The Parliament Act is applicable if agreement on the Bill as a whole is not achieved. That will not be affected if the House agrees to either of the two motions that are being proposed today. Beyond that, I do not want to be drawn into ruling on hypothetical situations, because it might be thought that I was trying to influence the debate. It is up to the Minister to explain the effect of the motion that he is bringing before the House.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify whether, if you chose to use the Parliament Act and it was used under your guidance—you have to follow the rules—you could be swayed at all by a vote in this House? Do you agree that the only way in which you can be prevented from using the Parliament Act is by a vote in this Parliament telling you not to use it, and can we have that vote?
The hon. Lady is correct; that is the case.
Lords amendments: Nos. 1 to 44 and 46 to 54.
I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 10C, 12C and 52C. If the House agrees to the amendments, I will arrange for the necessary entries to be made in the Journal. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment to the Minister's amendment in the name of Opposition Members.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For clarity, there are two amendments in the names of Opposition Members. Which one are you referring to?
Amendment No. 1.
I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 44 and 46 to 54, disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 10C, 12C, 46C and 52C, but proposes the following amendment in lieu—
Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause:—
'Commencement
(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on 31st July 2007—
(a) sections 1 to 4,
(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to sections 1 to 4,
(c) sections 11 to 14 in so far as they relate to sections 1 to 4,
(d) Schedule 1, and
(e) Schedules 2 and 3, except in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.
(2) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed—
(a) section 5,
(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to section 5,
(c) sections 11 to 13 in so far as they relate to section 5, and
(d) Schedules 2 and 3 in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.'.
Essentially, I am inviting the House to restore the Bill to the form that we have previously agreed, but I shall also be inviting it to consider proposals in respect of commencement. I want to explain what I am trying to do today. As always, the Government want to be helpful and constructive, giving people time to adjust to the reality of legislation on the statute book. I shall then explain the procedure. I want to do those two things very clearly and without taking interventions, so there is absolutely no doubt about what I am saying. Of course, I will then be prepared to take interventions from hon. and right hon. Members.
This House previously agreed to propose a delay in commencement until July 2006. I have tabled a motion proposing July 2007, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) has proposed 2006. Those are both choices that would enable this House not only to be reasonable but to be seen to be reasonable by going the extra mile, if we like. The House insists on the Bill as it has already agreed it, with only that date being changed. That is what is before us today.
Let me come to the procedure. I suggest to the House that it is clear but complicated, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the clarification that you gave before we started the debate. I want to give hon. Members complete certainty about the impact of what we are asking the House to agree to today. I am advised that passing either motion on commencement would not in any way affect the application of the Parliament Act. We would be passing not an amendment to the Bill, but a motion to propose an amendment in lieu. In other words, we would send the Bill to the other place as previously passed by this House in its Parliament Actable form. Alongside it, if passed, would be the motion making the proposal that the other place amend the Bill in order to delay commencement of the ban. From that point on, the only question is whether the Bill becomes law with the agreement of the other place or via application of the Parliament Act, with or without the proposed change in the date of commencement.
If we send a motion proposing an amendment to the Lords and they accept it, it will form part of the Bill as enacted. If there are no other disagreements, the Bill will pass without the Parliament Act. If there are disagreements, the Parliament Act will enact the Bill as first sent to the other place, but with the amendments proposed by this House today. If neither of the amendments is carried, I will move that this House insists on its disagreement with all the Lords amendments and disagrees to their amendments in lieu. Our position is very simple.
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Countryside Alliance has threatened to drag this through the courts. Can he guarantee that the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the judicial council of the other place will absolutely agree with the interpretation that he has given us today?
My hon. Friend knows that it would be unwise of any Minister to predict what they will do about anything, be it the original Bill, an amended Bill or any other legislation. I can say, however, that if we do what I suggest and pass the Bill in its Parliament Actable form—that is, if we reject the Lords amendments and invite the Lords to take the common-sense step of agreeing to our proposition for a delay in the date of commencement—that sensible approach would lead only to the courts' considering whether the date of commencement should be a date that we have agreed in this House or the original date three months hence, in February 2005. I think that the position is entirely clear, and although I appreciate the wish of some hon. Members to make it more complicated, I shall do my best to keep it simple.
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will help me in that regard.
I am trying to help with clarification. The Lords having already rejected the 18-month delay, if this House sent that proposal to them by passing the second of the two motions—which would require the Minister to move it—what would happen then? Would the proposal come back to us for further consideration, or for us to suggest a further alternative? If the Lords insisted on, let us say, three years or two and three quarter years, what process would follow?
I think that if the Lords did not accept our proposed date of commencement, we would have reached the end of the road. The Bill would be Parliament Acted with no change in the date of commencement.
I am not convinced that the Minister is necessarily correct, but perhaps he can put me right. As I understand it, there are two debates going on, one about the nature of the Bill and the amendments and the other about the date of commencement. The date of commencement is not connected with the question of the Parliament Act. In theory, we could go on arguing about the commencement till kingdom come, regardless of whether the rest of the Bill is enacted.
In theory, we could indeed continue to argue about it for a long time. I am giving the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will not.
Does the Minister understand that everyone in the countryside who cares for liberty and the environment will see that his machinations over commencement have absolutely nothing to do with reasonableness, as he is suggesting, and everything to do with shabby political horse-trading between Labour Members behind the scenes? The whole thing is a disgrace.
I know that no hon. Member would seek to mislead the House, but it sounds as if the hon. Gentleman wants to mislead the countryside. In our original discussions with organisations that have been involved in this debate for many years, including the Countryside Alliance, those organisations—including the Countryside Alliance—accepted that the issue was cruelty. That is the subject that has dictated the debate about legislation on hunting. Let me also tell the hon. Gentleman, yet again, that people in the countryside are divided on hunting, just as people in urban areas are. This is not about a divide between urban and rural people.
This House voted on Tuesday to insist on the Bill in the form in which we sent it to the Lords in September—that is, what is generally called the banning Bill. The Lords have now insisted on their feeble version of the registration scheme, so it is the Lords who have chosen confrontation, and I regret that. At this stage, I sense no appetite among supporters of a ban in this House for any change in the House's well-established position. It is the will of this House of Commons to have this Bill. I should make clear that it is not this House that is insisting; it will be the House of Lords, if it does not accept what we are saying today, that will have provoked the application of the Parliament Act.
There remains the question of when the Bill is to come into force. As it stands, it will come into force in three months, on 18 February 2005. That three-month period applied to the original Bill, involving a tribunal system which I sought to persuade colleagues to support and which would have come into force three months after the Bill. This House has reasonably proposed a delay of about 18 months, until 31 July 2006, for the start of the ban on hunting—but not on hare coursing events, which would be banned three months after implementation in any case.
In their amendments the Lords suggested a three-year delay for all hunting, including hare coursing events, until 1 December 2007 or even later; but that would be for their registration Bill. At the same time, they voted against our suggested amendment proposing commencement on 31 July 2006. In doing so, they have in effect voted for a ban that will come into force in February next year. All the Lords' decisions on the Bill have been, in my view, irrational. With this one, they have behaved like turkeys voting for Christmas. I cannot believe that they meant it, although my noble Friend Lord Whitty made the position absolutely clear to them.
My proposed amendment in lieu would give the Lords another chance. It takes the same form as our earlier suggested amendment. It would bring the Bill into force on 31 July 2007 for hunting purposes, but again not for the purposes of hare coursing events. By sending it back to the Lords, we will give them a straightforward choice between the date that we suggest and three months from Royal Assent today. If they seek to insert a different date or to change the clause in any other way, this House will insist on the three-month period, because that will keep the Bill within the Parliament Act.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who want a total ban were willing, and continue to be willing, to go along with the earlier postponement to 31 July 2006, but no later than that? Is there not a danger that what he now proposes will give the impression that we are terrified of the threats of violence and thuggery from those who intend to break the law? Given that the House of Commons has agreed to a total ban six times in the past four years, what we propose—unlike what my right hon. Friend now proposes—is surely compromise enough, and responsibility for any further delay lies entirely with the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend is quite right. I think it showed great willingness to be reasonable on the part of Members to agree to the delay of commencement until 2006. I am asking them now to go the extra mile. Whether they do so or not is in their hands. It is Members of this House who will vote on the two motions in lieu; I simply seek to persuade them to consider the 2007 option.
My proposal for a delay until July 2007 would indeed be a compromise between the Lords' proposal for 1 December 2007 and the House's earlier proposal for 31 July 2006. Hon. Members will know that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) has tabled an amendment to reinstate the 31 July 2006 commencement date, which gives my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) an opportunity to vote in the way in which he has suggested. I do not feel passionately about the choice between the two dates, but it is important for us to demonstrate—as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North did when he agreed to 2006 on the last occasion—that this House is being reasonable, as well as insisting on the Bill being in the form for which this House has voted on a number of occasions.
When the original Alun Michael Bill, as it came to be called, was recommitted to the Standing Committee on which I sat, I tabled 45 amendments, which the Government adopted, to make it a banning Bill. I deliberately did not table amendments to change the three-month implementation period, and nor did the Government. Will my right hon. Friend explain why he appears to have changed his position, because he could have tabled an amendment in Standing Committee to change the three-month period? He did not do so, but he now seeks July 2007.
When the Bill came before the House last year and it became clear that it could be reintroduced and have the Parliament Act applied to it, I thought that common sense would prevail and that people involved with hunting would say, "Well, if the elected House of Commons in the Parliament of this country is intent on taking that decision, we had better start thinking about it." However, those who oppose a ban on hunting have encouraged their followers to believe that legislation will not be introduced. Ordinary people, who have perhaps been misled by their leadership, should be given time in order to prepare for a ban, deal with animal welfare considerations and change the activities and businesses in which they are involved. That is the common-sense and generous way in which to approach the Bill, without changing the nature of the legislation, on which this House has agreed on more than one occasion.
Many of us think that the constant dithering over the Bill brings our political processes into disrepute. We thought that we had reached an agreement with the Government on 2006 to settle the matter. Will the Minister explain what could possibly be gained by extending the implementation date to 2007?
If my right hon. Friend had listened to my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), the answer would be clear: it is because the people involved in hunting are unwilling to accept that the Bill will completely change their situation and make illegal some of the activities in which they participate. I want law-abiding people to obey the law, and I hope that they will do so. The change in the implementation date will make it more possible for them to obey the law, without giving rise to employment problems or animal welfare difficulties, concerning, for instance, the disposal of packs of dogs. That is a perfectly reasonable way in which to proceed. I say to my right hon. Friend that being reasonable, which is all that I seek, cannot bring this House into disrepute. I ask the House to insist, as it has done, on the nature of the legislation that it passes, but to do so with a reasonable implementation date.
The Minister said that the countryside has been misled. Is not the truth that the countryside has been misled by the honeyed words from No. 10 to the effect that a ban would not be implemented?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is totally wrong, as he very often is. I did not say that the countryside has been misled; I said that those who are active in hunting have been misled by their leaders into thinking that this House would not act. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has acted with integrity throughout: he made it clear that he wanted to see a compromise and that he supported the Bill in the form in which I brought it to the House. He also made it clear that he respected the fact that for many years this has been a free vote issue for hon. Members—I thought that it was a free vote issue for hon. Members on both sides of this House. That is acting with integrity, and it does the right hon. and learned Gentleman no credit to cast doubt on that.
I agree with my right hon. Friend on the need to go the extra mile, but will he accept that many Labour Members think that we went that extra mile with the July 2006 date? If he does not feel strongly about 2006 or 2007, will he assist other hon. Members and me by explaining why he has introduced the 2007 implementation date?
Essentially, the 2007 date gives the House the option of being reasonable, as we were on the last occasion when we proposed 2006. It also gives the House the option to go the extra mile. It is between the date that we proposed and the date agreed in another place. Either 2006 or 2007 would be reasonable, but 2007 would go the extra mile.
Will my right hon. Friend clarify this point? Two months ago, he moved that the implementation date be postponed to 31 July 2006, and the House of Commons voted in favour of that. Now, he says that he wants to be reasonable by postponing the implementation date for a further year. What has happened between his moving that motion two months ago and today to make 2007 more reasonable than 2006?
First, if one of the choices is reasonable, the other choice is even more reasonable. Secondly, on what has changed, we have continued to have discussions and arguments in the public domain in seeking to demonstrate that this House is being reasonable, and I have therefore put the two options before the House. I am convinced that the House will be reasonable and that one option is more reasonable than the other.
Will the Minister clarify whether he accepts the fact that, if the Bill were introduced within three months, it would have a substantial impact on rural areas? If either of the two amendments were defeated in the Lords, is the Minister saying that he accepts in principle that the Bill would have a substantial effect and that he would introduce measures to ameliorate the effect on hunts and on the rural economy?
No. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, the effect on the rural economy—this is demonstrated in the Burns report—will be small, but the Bill will affect some individuals. Although it is not wrong to impose a three-month limit, which raises no serious issues, delaying implementation until July 2006 would provide a reasonable and generous opportunity to prepare for the application of the legislation, and a delay until 2007 would provide an even greater and more generous opportunity. That is the only difference.
Earlier this week, it was trailed that some elements within the Government are concerned about the possibility of a judicial review of the procedure. The right hon. Gentleman may know that the main criterion is to have acted reasonably—this afternoon, he has repeated the word "reasonable" 25 times.
That is because I am being reasonable, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has noticed. I have received legal advice, and we are content that the Bill and the process will not lead to difficulties of the sort that, for instance, an attempt at judicial review might bring about. It is, of course, open to organisations to seek judicial review—I understand that the Countryside Alliance has sought to do so—to give notice and to take action in the courts, if they wish to do so. However, my legal advice is clear.
The Minister is not being unreasonable with the House this afternoon, even to those of us who fundamentally disagree with the Bill and who are 100 per cent. in support of hunting. He is advancing a number of propositions, but is he prepared to advocate from the Government Front Bench that Labour Members should vote for 31 July 2007?—[Interruption.] I am not saying that he is mandating Government Members; I am suggesting that he might advocate that they vote for the amendment that would enable the country as a whole to take a decision on this issue, because between now and then there will be a general election, which can perhaps finalise the matter.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his recognition that I am trying to be reasonable. I am glad that he spotted that each individual Member on this side of the House will make up their own mind and vote as they see fit. I have tabled the motion on 2007 and will invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to vote for it. I make it clear—because at that point only motions moved by a Minister will be considered—that I intend, should the 2007 date be defeated, to move the second motion to give the House an opportunity to vote on the date of 2006. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that.
On the question of possible challenges in court to the Bill once it is enacted, what legal advice has my right hon. Friend received as to whether such challenges would be more or less likely to succeed if the Bill were to be further complicated by amendments at this late stage?
I am advised that the Bill is sound and secure with or without any such changes. My hon. Friend can have full confidence in that.
Given that it is a free vote, will the Minister tell the House how the Prime Minister is likely to vote?
Given that it is a free vote, it is up to the Prime Minister just as it is up to the hon. Gentleman. The way in which all right hon. and hon. Members vote, or do not vote, will be clear when the record of the Division is published.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the hyperventilation of some sections of the media, the latest date for a general election is late June 2006? In contradistinction to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the rationale for his motion might be that to add one further year beyond that latest date for the next election would allow for the election of a more hung Parliament and delay the issue into the middle distance.
My hon. Friend has made his point. I make proposals based on the practicalities of animal welfare and issues of that sort.
My hon. Friends and I trust my right hon. Friend, but it is what might happen afterwards that really concerns us. If both the amendments on the implementation date fall, he will then move the Bill as it left this place before. In those circumstances, would not it be much clearer were the Government to say—perhaps he can say now—that during the new Session of Parliament a one-clause Bill will be introduced with an implementation date of 2006, so that there is no dubiety, as they say in the trade union movement?
I am not prepared to do that. It is an option for the Government to introduce a one-clause Bill to delay implementation, but that would have two disadvantages. First, it would be some time later, and part-way through the period to February 2005, and therefore would not provide immediate clarity on the date of commencement. Secondly, it would mean this House and another place spending more time debating this issue, on which plenty of time has been spent over many years. It would be better for us to agree today a motion proposing an amendment in lieu and to invite another place to agree with it, and then to have drawn a line very clearly under the whole issue and to have given a very clear date of commencement for the legislation.
The important point is to put the issue back to the Lords to ask them to think again. Do they want the hunting ban to start this February or at whatever later date this House suggests? They will have a straight choice, and we should leave it to them. They claim to defend the interests of people and animals involved in hunting—I refer of course not to the whole House but to those who support hunting. If they want the ban to start sooner, so be it.
In asking the House to support the motion, I hope that it will respond in the spirit in which Members have questioned me today, and send to the House of Lords a reasonable proposition, as well as the Bill in the form on which this House has already agreed.
Before I call the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to move his manuscript amendment, I make it clear that the debate will also cover motion b, in the name of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley).
I beg to move manuscript amendment No. 1,
"leave out from '52C' to end."
Before I speak to the amendment and to the amendments proposed by the other place, I should explain why my name appears on the amendment with what might reasonably be described as a fairly unholy alliance of individuals. Our reason for tabling it is simple and principled—namely, because the way in which the Minister tabled his motion would have required us either to vote against the amendments tabled by the other place in order to secure his timing proposals, or to vote against his timing proposals. That is wrong. It is reasonable that we in this place should speak and vote in support of amendments proposed to us by our noble Friends, and that we subsequently have the opportunity to support what the Minister has proposed with regard to timing. It is unreasonable, however, to place us in the position of being unable to speak in favour of the amendments from the other place in order to try to secure the delay that the Minister proposes. We are therefore ready to consider the entire question of the Minister's motion and to seek to strike down the part of it that is to do with the timing of an outright ban.
Today's debate is not only about implementation dates, which the Minister largely focused on—it is about all the proposals from the House of Lords. I shall try to address several of those as well as the very important issue of when the Bill and the ban should be implemented.
Before I do so, I should say that this debate has all the feelings of the final act of a sombre and melancholy tragic drama. For me, it is the end of a kind of parliamentary nightmare—a ghastly rural soap opera in which ignorant urban interests triumph over the countryside. For a few moments last night, I was glad that this would be the last time that I rose at this Dispatch Box to discuss hunting—[Interruption.]
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber; it is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It then occurred to me that although this is the last time that I will rise at this Dispatch Box to discuss hunting, I can look forward to the opportunity this time next year of rising at the Government Dispatch Box as the Minister responsible for proposing the repeal of this disgraceful, prejudiced and ignorant little Bill.
Last night, when she moved the amendments in the other place, Baroness Mallalieu, who is, among other things, president of the Countryside Alliance—I pay tribute to her and to the Countryside Alliance for the wonderful work they have done over many years in seeking to save the liberties of the countryside—said that this is a "rank bad" Bill. That sums up the Bill: it is indeed "rank bad". She continued:
"Its foundations are naked prejudice and wilful ignorance. It is without rationality, without principle, and it runs counter to all the evidence gathered . . . at the Government's own inquiries."
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I shall get into my stride and then I shall happily do so.
Baroness Mallalieu said that the Bill was a badly drafted measure, which
"allows terrier work . . . in order to protect a pheasant or a partridge but not to protect a lamb or a curlew, which allows the hunting of rats but not mice, rabbits but not hares; which destroys jobs . . . homes . . . and does so without compensation".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 1556.]
The noble Lady, a Labour peer, puts her finger on the spot. It is a "rank bad" Bill, which her amendments would do much to improve.
The House made clear its views on licensing versus banning less than 48 hours ago. I was delighted to go through the Lobby with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Minister for Rural Affairs and Environmental Quality and his boss, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to vote for the Lords proposals on licensing, although we ultimately lost the vote. It is odd that we are considering using the Parliament Act to drive through a Bill against which the Prime Minister voted only two days ago. That is a constitutional peculiarity to which I shall shortly revert.
The hon. Gentleman believes that he may not discuss hunting again for some time but, depending on the outcome of votes today, the Minister has already contemplated a one-line Bill. Given the flaws that the hon. Gentleman has already identified, if the Government use the Parliament Act to force through the Bill without accepting the registration scheme, is not there every chance that they will have to revert quickly to the matter to make the measure workable?
I fear that the hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill is badly drafted and even if, like so many Labour Members, one were committed to abolishing hunting, the measure is not the way to do it. It will not work; it will prove impossible to police; its definitions are difficult to understand—it is extraordinarily badly drafted. I therefore believe that we shall have to revert to it.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and subsequently to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who was so complimentary to me yesterday when we met in the Lobby.
Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me? Perhaps I am being even thicker than usual, but the effect of the manuscript amendment would simply be to disagree with the Lords. We would not change one jot or comma of the Bill. If the amendment were accepted, we would go straight to the point at which the Parliament Act would be invoked. Am I right?
I claim no great expertise in some of the more abstruse parts of parliamentary procedure, but my understanding is that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The purpose of the manuscript amendment is to seek an opportunity to vote in favour of the other place's amendments and subsequently to vote for or against—we will have to decide—the Minister's proposal. The precise consequences will become clear later.
Has my hon. Friend read any legal advice about whether the Bill is more likely to be effectively challenged if the delay is three months, 18 months or three years?
I am grateful for that interesting intervention. The answer is a straightforward no. I have seen no legal advice and have no idea whether challenges are more likely if the delay is three months, 18 months or any other time. I suspect that, if the Bill is bad for human rights reasons or if the Government make bad use of the Parliament Act—several legal challenges are pending on that—the courts will find that to be the case, so it is not for us to prejudge the outcome. I fear that I cannot help my hon. Friend.
Before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, I must tell hon. Members that, only yesterday, we met in the Lobby and he was extraordinarily complimentary, not necessarily about what I was saying but at least about the way I was saying it. I am most grateful for that.
I stand by that. I respect and admire the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary performances, even if I disagree with him. Through some recondite parliamentary procedure, which I do not understand despite all my years in the House, my name has appeared on the amendment. I make it absolutely clear that I shall not vote for the amendment and I shall advise my hon. Friends not to do so.
I am most grateful for that clarification. I am relieved that my name and the right hon. Gentleman's do not appear on the same proposal. I am sure that the House will note the great relief all round.
As the Official Report will show, the hon. Gentleman told the House a few moments ago that the Prime Minister voted against the Bill. That is not true. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put the record straight. Like everybody who voted for amendments to the Bill, the Prime Minister did so in the sincere belief that they would improve it. I happen to disagree, but I stress that nobody voted against the Bill the other day when we discussed only amendments.
My instinct is to say that anyone who votes for an amendment that fundamentally changes the Bill thereby votes against the measure. If the proposal of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) had been accepted on Tuesday, a licensing regime would have been introduced. It seems straightforward to me that the Prime Minister effectively said that he did not want a ban. Even if that were not the effect of his vote on Tuesday, it reflects his comments in press conferences and what his official spokesman has been authorised to say on countless occasions. It is plain that the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others oppose a ban and would like a middle way. Unfortunately, they have not achieved their aim because of the actions of Back Benchers. None the less, that was their view.
Is not the simple truth that the Prime Minister, with the support of many Cabinet colleagues and others, was trying to restore the measure to its original form, which the Minister introduced? He is nodding assent.
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which speaks for itself.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be careful not to describe the amendment that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) tabled as a middle way or a compromise? It proposed a ban through a tight licensing regime.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right.
My hon. Friend mentioned a potential challenge. The Joint Committee suggested that a three-month ban was unreasonable and potentially open to challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998. Has he noticed that coursing is not included in both extensions that the Minister proposes? If something is unreasonable for hunting, why is it not unreasonable for coursing?
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the Joint Committee, which has tentatively concluded that a measure that included a three-month ban would not comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. That will be tested in the courts. He also makes a good point about hare coursing, which is, bizarrely, singled out for an immediate ban. Hare coursing kills fewer hares than shooting or hare hunting, which would be allowed. It would be delayed for three years if the Minister's amendment were passed. However, hare coursing, which aims not to kill hares, would be banned in three months.
On legal challenge—[Interruption.]
Order. There are still too many conversations. [Interruption.] Order. Clare Short, too many conversations are happening. Perhaps they can be conducted elsewhere and not in the Chamber.
In terms of legal challenge, does the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) accept that the biggest problem is the way in which the Bill is constructed? For example, if a member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals found a dead mouse in someone's back yard and reported them to the police, it would have to be proved that the cat had killed the mouse, because if the dog was found guilty that person could go to prison.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good but abstruse point. Perhaps we should move on.
I want to focus particularly on the question of when and why the Bill should be implemented—either immediately, or effectively immediately, within three months; within 18 months, as the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), has suggested; or within two and three quarter years, which the Minister himself seems to be suggesting.
I believe that when the Government originally proposed 18 months it was not for animal welfare reasons; it had about it the stench of political expediency. They wanted to allow the ban to come into force after the general election and for hunting not to become an issue in that general election. In that context, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and indeed people in the countryside, are, for that very reason, perfectly content with an immediate ban.
A significant number of people who believe in hunting want an immediate ban so as to focus attention on opposition to the Government in the run-up to the general election. I have not gone along with that view, as it seems to me that there are some extraordinarily important animal welfare reasons for seeking to delay the Bill's implementation. This is all to do with animal welfare; it should not be to do with the election, political expediency or arguments. It should be to do with the best way of implementing what is to Conservative Members an obnoxious move.
That is why we are quite content to accept what the Lords propose—namely, a three-year delay. If we were given the opportunity to vote on it, we would doubtless at least consider what the Minister proposes, which is a delay of two and three quarter years. That is reasonably sensible.
It might be worth touching on why I believe that to be the case, why I believe that 18 months is no good at all and why three months is even less good. First, the Minister has said that the reason for the delay is to assist with re-homing hounds, as he calls it. The notion of re-homing hounds is absurd. Anyone who has ever been to a hunt kennels knows that the notion of removing any one of 100 dogs, some of which are as large as this Table and which have been living together for years—indeed, they may have been bred for generations for the purpose of hunting—and re-homing it in the front room of someone's bungalow is a great deal less—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I am just getting into my stride and we do not have much time.
The notion of re-homing hounds is extraordinarily absurd. We need to find a way to reuse the hounds. The animal welfare committee in this House proposed that, for example, they might be exported to take part in hunting overseas. That is an absurd suggestion.
rose—
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) was on the animal welfare committee and I happily give way to him.
May I offer clarification to the House? The report that the hon. Gentleman is referring to, which looked into the welfare implications for hunting dogs, was not from a committee of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. The group commissioned the report, but the people on the committee were from the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, as well as a veterinary surgeon from the university of Bristol, who specialises in dog behaviour. We did not agree with the idea of dogs being re-homed abroad—we had grave reservations about it. We simply said that when a ban was put in place in Scotland that is what some hunts did.
I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's correction on that point. That was a very select little committee and the report it produced has been rubbished, to use that common new Labour word, by a variety of learned people, including the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
The truth of the matter is that if hunting were banned within three months there would be a significant problem over what to do with hounds. I think everybody agrees with that.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I will not. The problem will not only be with hounds. I have here an interesting letter that the British Horse Society addressed to the Minister this week on the subject of the consequences for horses as well as hounds. Incidentally, the person who wrote the letter, Mr. Graham Cory, was until recently the Minister's horse tsar in the Department before becoming chief executive of the society.
This is a question not only of animal welfare, but of those who will lose their job, livelihood and income for feeding their family, so will my hon. Friend press the Minister for some form of compensation package for such people in my constituency and elsewhere?
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I shall discuss in a moment.
On the subject of horses, the British Horse Society makes it plain that an immediate or early ban on hunting will have significant consequences for horses. Mr. Cory says:
"Horses bred mainly or solely for hunting are not pets . . . By temperament and conformation, these are strong and vigorous animals . . . To expect these hunting horses to thrive in roles for which they are not suited by breeding would be as unrealistic as to expect trained sheepdogs to thrive as family pets . . . a sudden influx into the market of thousands of redundant hunters would be beyond the capacity of equine welfare organisations to manage. Some will undoubtedly be slaughtered, others will be forced into roles for which they are wholly unsuited."
The British Horse Society goes to great lengths to make it absolutely plain that there would be significant animal welfare consequences for horses, as well as for hounds, were there to be an immediate ban.
rose—
The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has already contributed, so I give way to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who has not.
There is no reason for any hound to be put down. The hunts can continue as drag hunts.
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We could all quote Lord Burns back and forth at each other, but the interesting thing is that he came to only one absolutely clear, absolutely plain and totally agreed conclusion, which is that by no stretch of anybody's imagination could drag hunting replicate hunting at the moment. That is a unanimous opinion in respect of the notion that those horses and hounds could be used for drag hunting.
There is a more interesting point here, none the less. Let us imagine that those hounds were used for drag hunting and that in the course of their drag hunting day they killed a fox accidentally—without that being the intention. Would they be guilty of an offence or not? The Bill does not make that plain. That is one aspect where the legislation is badly drafted. However—
rose—
If hon. Members will forgive me, we are not re-entering a substantive discussion on the Bill. We are discussing when the Bill should be implemented.
That is what I want to focus on, which is why I do not intend to take an excessive number of interventions from those whose opinions I am well aware of, having been involved in such discussions a number of times.
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. He has made that very clear indeed.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have given way reasonably generously. With only 10 minutes left, I cannot accept too many other interventions, although I may do so from time to time.
If today, despite everything, the House decides to use the Parliament Act to force through this bad and illegitimate law, it will do so against the wish of the Prime Minister and the wish of the Home Secretary, who will have to police it. They both voted against it only 48 hours ago. The House will also do so against the wish of the Lord Chancellor, who voted for the Lords amendments that we are considering today.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
In a moment, of course I will.
There can be no possible parliamentary precedent for the use of that ultimate nuclear procedural device, the Parliament Act, to force through a Bill that the leaders of the Government and holders of the great offices of state, who will be required to implement it, specifically and repeatedly voted against. The Parliament Act 1949 will itself be subject to judicial review in the months ahead, as will this most bizarre and unprecedented use of it.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that given the unprecedented nature of the use of the Parliament Act—the majority of Parliament as a whole has voted not to ban hunting in this way—there should be a vote of this House to make Members formally agree to Mr. Speaker using that Act?
I agree, which is why I put my name to the motion that the hon. Lady tabled to that effect. We in this House should be asked to vote on whether to use the Parliament Act, although I fear our procedures do not permit that. No doubt when the use of the Parliament Act is considered in the courts, the very point that she makes will be part of that consideration.
The Parliament Act challenge and the Human Rights Act challenge face us in the courts, which is where the battle will move to, assuming that the Parliament Act is used to push the Bill through this afternoon. The battle will be joined in the streets and in the countryside too. Mass protests, civil disobedience within the law and political campaigning of every kind will be unleashed. I appeal to the supporters of hunting and of freedom to remain within the law at all times, to abhor violence or intimidation of any kind, and to seek to avoid inconveniencing the general public, most of whom support our cry for freedom. They should focus their efforts on those people who are responsible for this illiberal law—namely, Labour Ministers and MPs, especially in the run-up to the general election. A Conservative Government will introduce an early Bill to repeal this ban, which makes our task at the general election clearer than ever, both nationally and in Labour and Liberal marginal seats, whose Members should watch out.
If the House decides to use the Parliament Act to force through this disgraceful and illiberal Bill, especially if we decide that it should commence in three months' time, we will send a clear message to lovers of hunting, lovers of shooting and fishing—which, without doubt, will be next—lovers of the countryside, and perhaps above all, lovers of our ancient freedoms that we care more about prejudiced and ignorant political correctness than about animal welfare. There will also be a hidden message to the countryside, which reads: "Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war."
I beg to move the amendment in my name. I must be brief. I no more wish to prolong the debate than I wish unduly to prolong hunting—
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the House to have two amendments before it, both moved at the same time?
This is an amendment to a motion, and it is perfectly in order. The right hon. Gentleman can take my word for it.
With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that it is a Wrekin amendment and not a wrecking amendment. It is characteristic of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality that he should want to go the extra mile, or, in this case, an extra year. He knows that I, as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, am always right behind him, even if I will not go the extra mile myself this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend has sought to identify common ground with the hunting fraternity and the House of Lords. It is doubtful, however, whether there is a piece of common ground big enough on which to pitch a tent that accommodates all of us. That is why he says that while one amendment before the House is reasonable, the other is more reasonable. It is up to the House, I suggest, to decide which is the more reasonable.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has referred can only be voted on if it is moved by a Minister of the Crown. He has now moved it, so it cannot be moved by a Minister of the Crown.
Order. For the sake of clarity, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) is actually speaking to his amendment. the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that although the hon. Member for The Wrekin may have said that he was moving his amendment, he is speaking to it. The right hon. Gentleman's latter point is correct; at the end, when the shutter comes down, only a Minister can move such an amendment.[Interruption.] Order. Many are the times that I have heard hon. Members say that they are moving an amendment when they are not doing so. What a Member says and what he gets are two different things. I am trying to tell
I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman move the amendment, and I am sure that the record will show that—
Order. I have distinctly heard other hon. Gentlemen say that they are moving an amendment when they are not really doing so; they are merely debating it. I will clarify the matter if it keeps the right hon. Gentleman happy; the hon. Gentleman is not moving his amendment, but speaking to it.
As the House can tell, I am not moving, but I am speaking. [Laughter.] I am doing so because I want the House to have the opportunity to choose which of the motions on the Order Paper is the most reasonable. I believe that delay until 2006 is reasonable and sensible because it gives hunts the opportunity to adopt drag hunting to save the jobs, the dogs—and the fox for that matter—the fallen stock collection service to farmers and the way of life in which they believe, and will provide opportunities for riders who currently would like to ride across the country but who will not chase a fox.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
In a moment. The delay gives hunters the opportunity to make this an election issue—none of us should be frightened of that—and deprives them of any vestige of an excuse to shoot their dogs or hounds or to support unlawful protest in the countryside.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking so clearly to the amendment. I intend to vote against amendment a, which is in the Minister's name, and for his amendment b. Does he believe that the vast majority of people in this country will understand the reasonableness of our actions when following his lead on this matter?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose support is valuable given his reputation on this issue. He is absolutely right; there can be no reason for anyone in the country to believe that the House is acting unreasonably if we provide an 18-month delay to allow hunts to make their arrangements and to change to drag hunting if that is what they choose. What would be unreasonable is for the House of Lords to reject the motion. It would be perverse indeed if those who claimed to support hunting were those who put the last nail in its coffin.
Not many Members have remarked on it but, last Tuesday, those Opposition Members who support hunting voted for a Bill that they voted against on Second Reading just a couple of years ago. I suggest that the confusion is theirs, not ours. We want a ban, but we want it introduced in an orderly fashion and in a reasonable way. I therefore hope that colleagues on both sides of the House will support the motion to bring in a ban on 31 July 2006.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Order. Time is now up.
It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
The House proceeded to a Division.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of hon. Members are confused about the first vote. What would happen if the amendment in the name of the Opposition spokesman, on which we are now voting, gains a majority? Would there be a further vote, or would the other amendments fall?
We would then vote on the Minister's motion, as amended, because the amendment being voted on is an amendment to the main motion.
Main Question put:—
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm my understanding that an amended Bill can have the Parliament Act applied to it only if the amendment in question is agreed by both Houses of Parliament, and that those who wish to ban hunting must therefore vote, in respect of the next amendment, for the original Bill and for an immediate ban?
I answered a similar point of order earlier, and to summarise what I said, I will not be drawn into that one. I did invite hon. Members to clarify the matter with the Minister, and the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to do so. It would be wrong of me to be drawn into such issues while voting is taking place.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House has now recorded the biggest majority ever against the banning of fox hunting, may we please move to the next business?
When I was a member of a political party, I used to get involved in tactics—[Interruption.] Order. I invite the Minister to move the amendment in the name of Mr. Bradley.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 44 and 46 to 54, disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 10C, 12C, 46C and 52C, but proposes the following amendment in lieu —
Leave out clause 15 and insert the following new clause:—
'Commencement
(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on 31st July 2006—
(a) sections 1 to 4,
(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to sections 1 to 4,
(c) sections 11 to 14 in so far as they relate to sections 1 to 4,
(d) Schedule 1, and
(e) Schedules 2 and 3, except in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.
(2) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed—
(a) section 5,
(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to section 5,
(c) sections 11 to 13 in so far as they relate to section 5, and
(d) Schedules 2 and 3 in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.'.—[Alun Michael.]
Civil Contingencies Bill
Under the Order of the House of 17 November, any message from the Lords relating to the Civil Contingencies Bill must be considered forthwith, without any Question put. I have to acquaint the House with the fact that a message has been received from the Lords as follows:
"The Lords agree without amendment the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of certain Lords amendments to the Civil Contingencies Bill to which the Commons have disagreed. They do not insist on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose amendments in lieu thereof, to which amendments they desire the agreement of the Commons. They do not insist on their remaining amendments to which the Commons have disagreed."
Lords amendments considered.
Lords amendment: No. 49B
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 50B.
Following the concerns voiced both in this House and the other place, we have reconsidered the issues of sunsetting and reporting on the use of part 2 of the Bill. The Government remain convinced—[Interruption.]
Order. We must have order in the House.
The Government remain convinced that sunsetting the Act itself is not appropriate in this case. The need to be able to respond to the most serious emergencies will not disappear after a given period, and revocation of the legislation would simply necessitate replacing it with something very similar.
As I made clear in Commons consideration of Lords amendments, any use of the powers under part 2 will be subject to detailed and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny and will be limited by the restrictions and safeguards set out in the Bill. Any regulations made under the Bill will be subject to sunsetting after a maximum of 30 days. This is one of the most aggressive sunsetting clauses to be found anywhere on the statute book.
I am sure that the Minister has had the opportunity since yesterday to speak to her advisers about the test of reasonableness. The plain fact is that the Bill does not contain an express reasonableness test with regard to the use of emergency regulations. In the light of the debate yesterday, will she explain to the House why that is not in the Bill?
I explained in terms to the hon. Gentleman yesterday that it was not necessary to have express provision for a test of reasonableness in the Bill. I also explained why that was the case.
The Government remain convinced that the sunsetting of regulations, and the need for them to receive the assent of Parliament, is the right way to ensure that the powers cannot be misused and that effective scrutiny takes place. Indeed, we have amended the Bill to specify that regulations must contain provision to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny can take place where this is effected by the emergency in question, or by response efforts.
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time.
The Minister may recall that the Minister in the Lords continually referred to the use of the powers as a temporary arrangement, yet it is clear from the wording of the Bill as it now is that the powers are not temporary but permanent. Will the Minister explain that as well?
As I explained yesterday to this House, and as has been explained in the other place, the regulations and the exercise of the powers under the Bill are temporary and subject to an aggressive sunsetting clause, in that they fall after 30 days unless Parliament confirms that they should continue and the orders are relaid.
There is no doubt that, given the scale of the emergencies that we are talking about, the Government's handling of such an emergency will be subject to intense scrutiny both inside and outside Parliament after the event. I need only refer to inquiries and reports published after the foot and mouth outbreak—in that case, emergency powers were not necessary—to highlight the fact that post-event scrutiny and review are, and will remain, defining features of the most serious emergencies.
However, in the light of the concerns that have been expressed, the Government are minded to give a firmer assurance to both Houses about the way in which we will ensure that the Bill operates correctly. In the event of the use of emergency powers, the Government would put in place formal arrangements to review the way in which the Bill and its mechanisms, including the safeguards, had worked in practice. To that end, within one year of the end of the point at which the emergency regulations fall, a senior Privy Councillor, appointed by the Government, would carry out a review of the operation of the Bill. The process would be repeated for each emergency for which the Bill is used. That review would be published, and thus be available to Parliament.
The findings will provide a useful tool for the Government, who would aim to learn lessons from any emergency and improve processes wherever necessary. They will be conscious of the need to justify their decision to use the powers and their handling of the emergency in the cold light of day, both before they use the powers and throughout their exercise.
Does the Minister believe that the appointment of a Privy Councillor by the Government is a broad enough base to secure a properly independent view? Would it not be appropriate for Parliament, with Members from all political parties, to agree the appointment of the Privy Councillor?
The Government's approach is consistent with the long-standing convention that, following major emergencies, Governments appoint senior independent figures to review events. The Anderson inquiry into foot and mouth is a good example. There are also strong parallels with the practice used under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
I am grateful for the commitment that the hon. Lady has given, as it substantially meets the Opposition's arguments. It is obviously desirable to have such a report, but can she make a commitment that it would be debated in both Houses?
I would certainly expect it to be debated. The nature of the review would be determined by the nature of the emergency—that is more flexible and less mechanistic than a sunsetting debate a year after the use of the powers, which could be disproportionate and unnecessary, particularly if the exercise of the powers was uncontroversial and effective.
I do not wish to be churlish, but the hon. Lady was asked to give a commitment. What she expressed was expectation, so would she now give a commitment?
I can assure the House that a debate will take place—that is the commitment that I am giving on behalf of the Government. An independent report will be published and debated by Parliament.
Can the Minister confirm that the independent Privy Councillor who was appointed would not be a politician? He would be a person of independence and integrity by virtue of his oath, but should not be involved in politics.
I have given a commitment that the Government will appoint a senior independent figure to review events along the lines of the practice adopted under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. If we can agree to that—I hope that all hon. Members accept that it represents movement by the Government and a real increase in parliamentary scrutiny—we will have settled on a powerful, dual-track approach. First, actions under the Civil Contingencies Bill will be subject to the existing 30-day sunset provision. Secondly, there will be a slower review of the operation of the Bill itself.
I hope that that gives the House the reassurance that it seeks and demonstrates the Government's commitment to effective review and scrutiny of the use of the emergency powers legislation, not just at the time that it is used but in the longer term, when we can consider its appropriateness in the light of experience and the passage of time.
I have been impressed by the sensible and consensual nature of the debates on this important piece of legislation, both in the House and in the other place. The Bill has, indeed, benefited from a number of helpful amendments made in the light of concerns expressed during debate. I hope that all hon. Members receive this proposal in the same light, and I commend it to the House.
I agree with the point on which the Minister ended. The Bill has been fully considered. It started with pre-legislative scrutiny and it was fully considered in Committee. The pity of it is that when it came to Report, which is an important stage of any Bill, such a draconian guillotine was imposed that hon. Members who had taken an interest in the Bill over some time were unable to discuss large parts of part 2. With that caveat, I thank the Minister and her predecessor for the consensual nature of the discussions that we have had on the Bill.
I made my remarks yesterday about sunsetting. It is a good thing to have sunset provisions for draconian powers. Having said that, today in the other place my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe tabled amendments to make the sunset provision take effect a year after any occasion on which the powers in part 2 were used. The purpose of that is to provide an opportunity to reflect on the power itself in the light of the way in which it had been used. None of us knows what circumstances will arise.
I accept that the Minister's commitment today to a report from a Privy Councillor every time that the part 2 provisions are used, followed by an opportunity to debate that report, is a substantial commitment and meets the case. I would like to press the Minister a little on one thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) intervened in the Minister's speech to make the point that the person who did the report should be a respected independent figure. Will she say a little more about the independence of the person chosen to produce such a report?
We feel that we have achieved something. I would like to think of it as perhaps not a full loaf but certainly a half.
I am pleased that we are able to finish the proceedings on the Bill on a consensual note. It has perhaps a more select audience than the previous Bill that we were debating, but in many senses it is a more significant measure.
The Minister has set out a procedure for reviewing the use of the emergency powers that fits in with what we argued for in the House of Lords and in this House yesterday. Lord Carlile is independent, but I would not say that he is non-political. He is still a political Member of the House of Lords. He reviews procedures used under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. That was precisely what we were looking for in the context of this legislation. We have set certain thresholds for Ministers to invoke the powers; as we discussed yesterday, those thresholds remain subjective. A review of the operation of those subjective tests is all-important. The Minister helpfully set out yesterday the way in which the thresholds worked—the difference between the Minister "thinking" and being "satisfied".
I now have that difference straight in my head with the illustration of the Prime Minister's argument that he did not think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but he was satisfied that it had. There is something there that can be tested. Similarly, in the context of a flu outbreak, a Minister might be satisfied that an outbreak was deadly and justified all kinds of emergency provisions being brought into place. That is a testable set of criteria; it is not the Minister simply thinking that a deadly flu outbreak is taking place and that things need to be done. Those are judgments that we believe Ministers are entitled to make, but Parliament is entitled to go over them again to see whether the facts justified the conclusion that was reached.
We think that the procedure that the Minister has set out today will meet our requirements. We are content not to oppose what the Minister suggests as a substitute for the set of arrangements sent to us by the House of Lords. I reiterate the comments that the Minister and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made about the conduct of proceedings on the Bill. This is the last opportunity that we will have to debate it in this place, but we have a different piece of legislation now from the one with which we started some time ago.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the person should be an independent figure? Does he also agree that the one thing that scarred the progress of the Bill was the very stiff programme motion introduced on Report, which meant that we were not able to discuss a large portion of the Bill at that important stage?
I am able to close on a consensual note by agreeing with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. The way in which the Report stage was handled was disgraceful. Part 2 of the Bill is far more significant than part 1 in terms of civil liberties and its constitutional implications, yet we ended up spending more time on part 1 than on part 2. We certainly did not have enough time to go through all the aspects of part 2 that we wanted to consider. That was reflected in the number of amendments from the Lords to part 2, which showed that there was still plenty of work to be done. I do not want the House of Lords to be used as a Committee stage for the more significant parts of the Bill, while the House of Commons gets to debate just the froth around the edges. The way in which part 2 and the Report stage were handled was disappointing.
I return to the hon. Gentleman's point about the independence of the person who carries out the review. Many of the concerns expressed yesterday from the Opposition Benches were about the fact that when there is an emergency, the requirement for the Government to get a majority in Parliament is not a sufficient safeguard. Under those circumstances, Governments can whip their Back Benchers—by definition, they have a majority of them—behind them, so that is not an adequate safeguard. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the key test is whether the person who conducts the review will stand outside the normal political melee and be able to reach an independent judgment.
For that to happen, two criteria must be fulfilled. One is that the person makes that judgment at a distance, as the Minister set out today, not in the debate about the emergency regulations themselves. That would be in the heat of the moment, and we want the judgment made at a cool reflective distance. The second criterion is that the person should be outside the normal political arena, so I understand why a Privy Councillor would be appropriate, assuming they were acting as an independent Privy Councillor with the nation's interests at heart, rather than with a party political interest at heart. Having listened to the contributions from right hon. Members in all parts of the House, including the Conservative Benches, I have confidence in the majority of the Privy Councillors present putting the nation's interests ahead of party interests and being very interested in the constitutional implications of the emergency powers.
If that can be achieved, we will have reached a reasonable compromise. I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to our arguments, whereas yesterday she had to argue that the Government did not consider that necessary. I thought we were persuasive and I am glad that she was persuaded to move in this direction.
I rise to follow up briefly the point that I raised in an earlier intervention, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the shadow Leader of the House, relating to the appointment of an independent Privy Councillor to review the powers contained in the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, those powers are draconian and if they are to be reviewed, the person reviewing them should be genuinely independent. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, highlighted that. He also expressed confidence that a majority of Privy Councillors can display proper and appropriate independence.
I shall press the Minister, however. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam emphasised that on Report inadequate time was provided for large sections of part 2, which is the most important part of the Bill, to be debated. I hope the Minister, for whom I have considerable affection and regard for her abilities, will take a message back to her party that it is inappropriate that on Report, which is the only stage at which Back Benchers can fully participate in the consideration of legislation, they did not have an opportunity to contribute because of the limitations imposed by the programme motion. Therefore, many of us choose Lords amendments as an opportunity to participate.
Will there be any discussion between the Opposition parties and the Government before a Privy Councillor is appointed, so that there is confidence across the House that the individual who is appointed to undertake this important task is genuinely independent? This legislation is critical. As several of my Opposition colleagues have highlighted during the debate, the powers that are granted to the Government under the legislation are draconian—probably the greatest powers in any legislation to have been vested in Government in the 34 years that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has been in the House. Therefore, I seek an assurance that the independence of the Privy Councillor is verifiable and that there is genuine consultation across the political parties prior to this person being appointed to undertake this important job.
I am slightly delaying sitting down to enable the Minister to receive the appropriate information from those who advise her. It is an important matter, I hope that she considers it to be an important matter, and I hope that she will reply to my request and that of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House.
I am here at the bitter end because I remain deeply concerned about the potential impact of the way in which these powers could be used in terms of the liberty of the subject—not an expression that should be used lightly. But in this particular context, and in view of the rejection of the inclusion in the list beyond the Human Rights Act 1998 of habeas corpus and the duration of Parliament, to give but two particularly important provisions, I remain deeply concerned about the way in which these powers could be misused. In particular, as I have already said, there is no express test of reasonableness, and impermanence is imported into the arrangements, which is unsatisfactory.
With regard to the nature of the decisions that could be taken, even Law Lords have recently, in relation, I think, to the Rehman case, said that political decisions in matters of this kind would be best taken by Ministers rather than by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary where there are extremely delicate questions about the liberty of the subject in relation to issues of national security. That is where the interface comes between emergency powers on the one hand and questions of national security on the other, because the two are likely to interlock. I simply make the point that the Human Rights Act in itself, irrespective of what the noble Lord Lester of Herne Hill said a few days ago, is inadequate to cover the various difficulties and dangers to the liberty of the subject that I believe are inherent in the proposals.
It is a step in the right direction to have a review by a senior Privy Councillor, but I repeat what I said in an intervention, that under no circumstances whatever should that person come from a political background. I say that because, having regard to the case law that has developed in relation to decisions of the most sensitive nature that I have just described, the view is taken that these are and should be political decisions and that that question has been adjudicated by the courts themselves. In this particular context, there would be a greater degree of independence if no person who held the job came from a political background.
I appreciate that my Front-Bench colleagues and the Liberal Democrats have now concluded that exchanges between the two Houses have reached their final stage. Nevertheless, I fear that the powers could be misused, and I think that the fact that the Government's programme motion impinged on Report, which is in many respects the most important stage in any Bill's consideration—it is particularly important in dealing with a Bill such as this one—was disgraceful.
Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the distinction that he made between the need for political decision making in the sense of the Minister making a decision and the need for non-party political independence in terms of the Privy Councillor?
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend puts it extremely well. On emergency powers and national security, the decision to invoke the powers is bound to be political at that point. Any question of review would need to be balanced with a degree of independence that would be guaranteed only by ensuring that any subsequent decision on the review was taken by a person without a political background.
I have made my reservations clear. There will not be another Division on these matters, but they will continue to evolve. Given the permanence of the issues and the incredible importance of getting them right, at least we have fought as hard as possible to ensure that they are dealt with in the right framework for future generations.
I thank the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for the way in which they have approached the Bill and the graciousness with which they have received the Government's proposals, which I have just set out. I also thank the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for Stone (Mr. Cash) for recognising that the Government have gone at least some way towards meeting their concerns, even if they have not been met in full.
I understand that there is some natural concern about how the review will be carried out and who will be appointed to lead it. The intention is that a single Privy Councillor will lead the review, but they will of course be assisted by a review team in carrying it out. The review will be independent, and the United Kingdom has a strong track record of appointing independent senior figures to carry out inquiries. In any event, to maximise the lessons learned, the Government would want to appoint someone who could step back from the situation. The report would be published and there would be a debate, and one of the issues debated would surely be the nature of the review itself.
I accept what the Minister is saying, but will she draw a distinction between what has been described as a political background, which is not the critical issue, and mindset, context and the way in which the process will be achieved, which will be much more important? Somebody's background will perhaps be irrelevant, as somebody who is not of a political background can have very strong political views. The critical issue is the context and process, not the background.
I completely agree. As I have set out, it would be extremely important for the Government to appoint someone who could step back from the situation. Of course, that ability comes from the personal specifications of the person who is carrying out the review and their willingness and freedom from political influence. It is such concerns that would inform the Government in their choice of Privy Councillor. The Government would of course discuss on Privy Council terms and consult the principal parties, thereby meeting the concerns of the hon. Member for Macclesfield. I hope that those assurances will satisfy nearly, if not all, Members.
I am sorry that doubt has been expressed about whether the Bill has been debated and consulted on enough. I am fairly new to it, but there has been considerable discussion—not least during pre- legislative scrutiny—and, as usual, the amount of time agreed between the political parties was not subject to much dispute.
The hon. Gentleman may agree to differ with me on that.
In fact we divided on every programme motion, although we have the highest opinion of the Government Whip involved.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. In any event, I think there was considerable scrutiny both in Parliament and outside. We do not follow this course lightly, and I believe that it will create a much more substantial and flexible framework than the one that it replaces.
The pre-legislative scrutiny was very helpful, and the Committee stage worked well. The problem arose on Report. The bottleneck relates to time in the Chamber, and that is where the dispute remains. If we learn anything from the process, it will be about expanding the time available to Members who cannot take part in pre-legislative scrutiny and the Committee stage.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, made it a personal priority to respond fully in writing to points to which she could not respond on Report. I hope that that helped Members to some extent.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members throughout the House, apart from Ministers, have expressed concern about the Report stage, when large parts of the Bill could not be discussed. Would it be possible for you to bring that to the attention of the Chairman of Ways and Means—the Deputy Speaker—who, on occasion, is called on to give evidence to the Procedure Committee, the House of Lords Constitution Committee and other bodies?
I think I understand the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, and I assure him that the matters he has raised never escape the attention of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Or, indeed, the attention of Ministers. I have certainly heard what has been said today.
I thank Members on both sides of the House for the scrutiny that they have devoted to the Bill. I think that it has improved significantly as a result, and I believe that the review process will go a long way towards meeting the last remaining concerns.
Lords amendment disagreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 49B and 50B: Mr. Allan, Mr. Heald, Ruth Kelly, Ms Bridget Prentice and James Purnell; Ruth Kelly to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
To withdraw immediately.
Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
Pursuant to the Order of the House of 8 November, the sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bell to be sounded.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of any Lords Amendments and Messages that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to the Order of the House of 8 November, the sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bell to be sounded.
Sitting suspended.
Hunting Bill
I have to inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows:
"The Lords insist on their amendments to the Hunting Bill, to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, for which insistence they assign their reasons. They insist on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their reasons, and they disagree to the amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu of the Lords amendments, for which disagreement they assign their reason."
I read these messages; I don't understand them. It was not a Glasgow man who wrote that one, anyway.
As the Minister made clear to the House in his remarks earlier today, a rejection on these lines has brought us to the end of the road. I am satisfied that all the provisions of the Parliament Acts have been met. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Accordingly, I have to tell the House that I have certified the Hunting Bill under section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949. The Bill endorsed by me will be sent for Royal Assent at the time of prorogation in compliance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts.
Sitting suspended.
Royal Assent
I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004
Civil Partnerships Act 2004
Housing Act 2004
Pensions Act 2004
Civil Contingencies Act 2004
Hunting Act 2004
Prorogation — Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the Lord Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy, I have obtained and also directed that the terms of the speech be printed in the Journal. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
The Gracious Speech was as follows:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: My Government has taken action in support of economic stability and growth, and to deliver reform of the public services, increasing opportunity and social justice.
My Government is committed to delivering a world class education system to allow individuals to achieve their full potential. An Act has been passed to enable higher education institutions to secure the additional necessary funding and ensure fair access for all. My Government has brought forward a Bill to enable some local authorities to pilot new arrangements for school transport to extend provisions to cover more pupils.
An Act has been passed to provide all children born from September 2002 with a child trust fund, encouraging parents and children to save and ensuring that all children have a financial asset at 18.
Legislation has also been passed to protect pension scheme members if companies become insolvent, to encourage employers to provide good quality pensions and individuals to save effectively for retirement.
My Government has published a draft Bill to ensure comprehensive civil rights for disabled people.
In addition, legislation has been passed putting in place a range of measures to streamline the asylum and immigration system and tackle abuse.
My Government continues to make the reduction of crime and the fear of crime a priority, and to enhance security and protection.
An Act has been passed modernising the laws on domestic violence and establishing a Commissioner to support the interests of victims and witnesses.
A Children's Commissioner for England has also been established as part of legislation improving services to protect children.
Draft legislation has also been published on establishing a national identity card scheme.
Legislation has been passed creating a long-term foundation for civil contingency planning in the UK, improving the basis for preparations at a local level and modernising the emergency powers framework.
An Act has been passed to ensure the fire and rescue services can respond effectively to the changing demands they face.
Members of the House of Commons: I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: My Government remains committed to working closely with the political parties and the Irish Government to see an end to all forms of paramilitary activity and to restore as soon as possible a stable and inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland. An Act has been passed establishing a Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
My Government continues to work closely with the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. Acts have been passed to retain the current number of members in the Scottish Parliament and to establish a single public audit body for Wales. A Bill to provide the National Assembly for Wales with a range of transport-related powers has been published in draft.
My Government continues to take forward a programme of constitutional reform.
Legislation has been passed to improve traffic flow and manage road works more effectively.
An Act has been passed to establish a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and to promote secure and sustainable energy supplies.
Legislation has been passed to help create a fairer housing market and protect the most vulnerable, and to make the planning system fairer and faster with greater community participation.
In addition, legislation has been passed implementing the Government's review of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and to improve company law by strengthening accounting, audit and inspection arrangements removing barriers to recruiting directors and creating Community Interest Companies to enable social enterprises to meet the needs of their communities in new and innovative ways.
My Government has brought forward draft legislation on a number of other matters including animal welfare, charities and mental health.
Other important measures have been enacted.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to pay a state visit to Nigeria in December and attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We were pleased to receive the state visit of His Excellency the President of Poland in May, and to pay a state visit to Germany earlier this month. We were also pleased to mark the centenary of the Entente Cordiale with a state visit to France in April and will receive His Excellency the President of France this week.
My Government played an active role in preparing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for further enlargement in March and the European Union for the accession of ten new member states in May. They worked with other member states to conclude negotiations on a new constitutional treaty for the European Union and to strengthen peace and prosperity in Europe.
My Government has worked for a strong partnership between Europe and the United States, and for effective action against the threat from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. My Government was active in securing the first ever generic United Nations Security Council Resolution on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The resolution imposes obligations on all states to criminalise the possession, manufacture or trafficking of such weapons, in particular for terrorist purposes. My Government was active, with the Government of the United States, in working with the Libyan Government towards their renunciation of weapons of mass destruction.
My Government has maintained the United Kingdom's commitment to enhancing stability in the Balkans and in rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq. My Government worked with the people of Iraq and the United Nations to establish the Iraqi Interim Government in June.
In partnership with France, Germany and other partners, my Government has worked to persuade Iran to address international concerns regarding its nuclear programme. My Government supported international negotiations with North Korea, and has continued to work towards peace in the Middle East.
My Government was active in securing a United Nations Security Council Resolution imposing obligations on the Government of Sudan to take action to end the terrible suffering in the Darfur region. My Government is the second largest bilateral donor working to improve the humanitarian situation in Darfur.
My Government published White Papers providing a statement of Defence Policy, and an assessment of capabilities the Armed Forces will require to meet the new strategic environment. Legislation has been passed giving enabling powers to bring in new pension and compensation arrangements for the Armed Forces.
My Government has worked to reduce poverty and for the achievement of the millennium development goals. It established the Commission for Africa to focus on development and progress in Africa. In addition my Government launched an HIV and AIDS strategy for the developing world which announces the UK's commitment to spend at least £1.5 billion over the next three years.
I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.
A Commission was also read for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor said:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons; by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday the twenty-third day of this instant November, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the twenty-third day of this instant November."
End of the Third Session (opened on 26 November 2003) of the Fifty-Third Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Fifty-Third Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.