With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.

The business for this week will now be:

Tuesday 22 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2005 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2005, followed by remaining stages of the Drugs Bill.

Wednesday 23 February—Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

Thursday 24 February—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

Friday 25 February—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for next week will now include:

Monday 28 February—Committee and remaining stages of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

I will of course make my usual business statement on Thursday.

The Leader of the House knows how seriously we view the decisions that the House will have to make about the Prevention of Terrorism Bill; indeed, such concern is shared in all parts of the House and in the country. Just this morning, I received an email from a solicitor stating that

"imprisonment without trial on the say-so of the Executive is completely contrary to our way of life and obviously open to abuse."

The Leader of the House will therefore realise how angry we are at the fact that this measure is to be rammed through the House, with our time for debate ruthlessly curtailed. The Bill should not be guillotined and it should have a proper Committee stage. The Government say that this legislation is urgent, but they have had more than three years since 9/11 in which to take the necessary decisions, and two months since the court case that prompted these changes. Is the House really to have just two days in which to consider these important matters? At one time, the Leader of the House would not have defended such proposals, which are redolent of the measures that he fought against so fiercely in South Africa. Will he think again about this Bill and, more importantly, about the time allowed for debate?

I am certainly not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman on civil liberties. Frankly, his synthetic anger suggests that he wishes to remain in opposition as shadow Leader of the House, rather than having to behave in the responsible way in which the Government are required to behave, given the terrorism threat that we face. There is no plan to ram this Bill through the House of Commons. He seems not to be aware that as a result of the Law Lords' decision, Royal Assent is required by early March at the latest. The Bill will need to be in force and control orders made in respect of the current detainees—if appropriate—before the part 4 powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 lapse on 14 March as a consequence of the Law Lords' judgment. It is not possible simply to renew them, because the Law Lords have declared that they are not lawful. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is the job of the Government to balance civil liberties and their continued protection with ensuring that we fight terrorism at every opportunity.

I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. The priority of the Liberal Democrats is to avoid any further derogation from the European convention on human rights, which is the central issue that must be tackled. We welcome the fact that the Leader of the House is putting some proposals before the House, but I must make the point that it is three years too late. As to the court ruling, we look with great regret on the way in which the Government have sought to circumvent it. We shall look very carefully at their proposals. If the legislation that results from the proposals does not find favour with the House, we would certainly want a much shorter derogation period—not 12 months, but perhaps four—in future, while we work out in greater detail across the House some satisfactory solutions to this difficult legal conundrum.

First, I acknowledge that the leader of the Liberal Democrats behaved in a responsible way when he saw the Prime Minister last Friday and said that he welcomed some of the changes being made—I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees—in contrast to the opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. As to circumvention, it is not a matter of circumventing the ruling but of introducing legislation so that we are no longer out of compliance with the European convention on human rights, as the Law Lords ruled. It is a question of overcoming that anomaly in the best way possible, which is what the leader of the Liberal Democrats discussed with the Prime Minister last Friday. Those discussions were very constructive.

Does the Leader of the House understand that the measures likely to be contained in the Bill represent the greatest attack on the liberty of the British people for 300 years? He understandably does not wish to take lessons from Conservative Members in that regard, but does he realise that many Labour Members—and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people outside the House who are natural Labour supporters—share precisely the concerns aired by the official Opposition spokesman?

The greatest attack on civil liberties in Britain in 300 years would be a suicide terrorist attack right at the heart of our communities. The Government would be acting irresponsibly if they did not, while balancing concerns about civil liberties, deter such an attack. It seems that some Opposition Members, among others, are encouraging us to act in that irresponsible way.

The Leader of the House may not be aware that Northern Ireland Members were informed that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would make a statement to the House today. Does he have any idea when that statement will be made during the course of this week? He will know that the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has issued a statement saying that he has evidence that two Members of this House—I refer to McGuinness and Adams—are members of the army council of the IRA. That has now been put on record, so surely the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to have a statement about what is taking place there.

It is the Secretary of State's intention to make a statement, but there was no plan to do so today.

The Leader of the House referred to the constructive discussions between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party. May I remind my right hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, that that is all very well, but we in the House are not privy to those discussions? There should be some disclosure before Second Reading as to whether agreement or concord was reached between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party. We also need to know whether—this is a crucial point for many Labour Members who have not been consulted in the same way—a judicial element applies when people are detained in their houses. For me, that is the critical point. While I am seized of the gravity of potential terrorism, I am not prepared to support legislation that keeps people in custody in their homes on the decision of a politician, although I might accept that decision by a judge—I see colleagues nodding in agreement. This is a dynamic situation and I hope that my right hon. Friend will report back to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister this afternoon. If he wants us to support him in the Lobby, he must meet our concerns.

I understand the reasons for my hon. Friend's question and I believe that he will be encouraged when the Home Secretary makes a statement tomorrow, which he intends to do before Second Reading so that any questions can be put to him. That will give plenty of time before the remaining stages, including Committee stage next Monday, for any points to be taken on board. I believe that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the contents of the Bill and that some of the worst fears that have been expressed in the media and elsewhere will prove not to be well founded.

The Leader of the House is clearly right in saying that we need to reach an understanding about the balance between liberty and the threats to it. However, in the spirit of the debate on a Liberal Democrat motion less than two weeks ago, does he accept that there are genuine concerns, particularly about the judicial element, throughout the House, and that the best way of resolving those is to have adequate debate rather than ramming the Bill through with undue haste, which is likely to lead to tears?

I am sorry, but I do not accept that we are ramming the Bill through with undue haste. I have already explained the reason for putting in place the necessary legislation and obtaining Royal Assent by early March in the light of the Law Lords' ruling. The Bill amends a specific section of the 2001 Act and there is no need to discuss it for more than two days. When the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at the Bill when it is published tomorrow, I think that he will be reassured that we are adopting a course of action that protects civil liberties and also protects us from terrorist attack. The balance is difficult, but when he hon. Gentleman hears what the Home Secretary announces, I think that he will agree that we have got the balance about right, although we will listen to any constructive suggestions to improve the Bill.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the strong action that he wants to take in response to terrorist threats would receive greater support if it were clear that all the available evidence would be brought to court, particularly phone tap evidence? That greatly exercised the Standing Committee that considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, but when the Bill reached this House, only one sentence of objection came from a Labour Member—my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is vital that phone tap evidence be admissible in court to minimise the prospect of people being unnecessarily detained without trial.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. He, too, will have a chance to question the Home Secretary tomorrow if he is not satisfied on that point.

I hope that the Leader of the House is aware that when the Home Secretary made his initial statement to the House he agreed with me that we need the widest consultation and discussion with Members from all parties before introducing a Bill. We shall not see the Bill until tomorrow, and most of us are totally unaware of its contents. Has not the Leader of the House, in his other job as Secretary of State for Wales, utterly failed in not consulting with other political parties in Wales?

No.

When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last made a statement to the House on this subject he gave an assurance that, whenever possible, a prosecution would be the preferred course of action. Is it the intention that the legislation will enshrine that as a precondition before control orders are possible? Have any thoughts been given to creating the new criminal offences recommended by the Newton report? Is it the intention that a cadre of judges will have the specific responsibility for dealing with such cases?

I think that my hon. Friend will see, when the Bill is published and the Home Secretary makes his statement, that a careful system of checks and balances will be put in place. I think that he will be encouraged by that—at least I hope he will be.

rose—

Order. The statement is about the rearrangement of business, and the substance of the matter can be inquired about tomorrow when the Home Secretary makes his statement.

Presumably the Leader of the House has been aware since the Law Lords' judgment that fresh legislation would have to be completed by early March, so it is his fault and not that of his critics in the House that it is being rushed through at this late hour. In those circumstances, should not there be more than one day for Committee and a slightly longer gap between Second Reading and Committee and Report so that we can consult interested parties outside?

For the reasons that I have already explained, I do not consider that necessary, because the Bill amends only one section of the 2001 Act. There will be plenty of time both to debate it in principle on Wednesday and to probe the Home Secretary before that, tomorrow. There will then be detailed line-by-line consideration on Monday. The precedents established by previous Governments, including ours and those in which the right hon. Gentleman served, show that when we have had to introduce emergency legislation of this kind, we have had to do it quickly. The reason it is being done at this time is that much care and thought have gone into getting the balance absolutely right—as best we can—between the protection of individual liberties and the threat of terrorist action. The right hon. Gentleman should welcome what we are doing when the whole proposal is published tomorrow.

Further to the point that the Irish Government have publicly and formally identified two Members of the House as members of a terrorist organisation, should not that be a matter of grave concern to the House and one that it should address at the earliest opportunity?

rose—

Order. That is not a matter before us at the moment.

I listened carefully to everything that the Leader of the House said, but why can we not have a few days to reflect on the Bill, which none of us has seen? Why cannot we have its Second Reading on Monday and complete its stages during the rest of next week? That would give us all an opportunity to read it and to reflect and consult on it, and many of the charges justifiably levelled at the Leader of the House could then be withdrawn.

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and he is always entitled to press me for more time, especially on such important issues. I remind him, however, that Royal Assent is required by early March at the latest as the Bill will need to be in force and control orders made in respect of the current detainees, if appropriate, before the part 4 powers lapse on 14 March; otherwise those people may simply walk out. The procedure still has to take its course in the House of Lords before Royal Assent can take place, and the Bill may be closely debated there, as the Lords are entitled to do. We are absolutely right to bring in the Bill as we have done, but we are anxious to see the fullest possible scrutiny of it.

Does the Leader of the House understand that people will be incredulous that the House will go from First to Third Reading in six days to impose, on the recommendation of the nation's secret police, powers of administrative detention? That he of all people should be recommending that to the House on such a timetable is extraordinary, and I hope that the Government will review it.

I am sorry, but I can give the hon. Gentleman no encouragement or satisfaction on that point. I have explained the necessity for the timetable. Surely he will understand that something has to be done before the powers lapse on 14 March, especially in light of the Law Lords declaring that the current legislation is defective in this respect and out of compliance. We need to do something about that, and I would have thought that he would join in a constructive discussion—and encourage the Leader of the Opposition to get involved—about the exact balance to strike, rather than opposing the measure almost outright, as appears to be the case.

Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's protestations, many of us in all parts of the House believe that the decision suddenly, and with such haste, to introduce this threatening piece of legislation is extremely undesirable, given that one of the linchpins of our liberties is under threat. Can he, on the strength, presumably, of advance sight of the draft of the Bill, at least offer the House an assurance that where such a sacred liberty is under threat the Bill that we see will be the Bill in total, and that there will be no provision in its clauses for further and potentially damaging incursions on liberty, introduced by the Government in the form of secondary legislation?

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see the contents of the Bill, but as I keep saying, I think he will be reassured. What the Government are doing and what we have always stood by is ensuring that the protection of individual liberty comes first—that is something that I have spent many years of my life fighting for—but in a situation where we have the suicide bomber and an international terrorist threat of quite a different order even from that of the IRA in past years, we need to be very careful about protecting our security and protecting our liberty alongside it, because if our security is not protected, what is the point of any liberty?

The Leader of the House keeps telling us about the very tight timetable that we must meet. Presumably, he knew of that timetable when he made his last business statement to the House. Since then, the House has not sat for a week, and now he tells us that there will be but six days from First to Third Reading. Will he assure me now that the House of Lords will not get longer to debate this issue than the House of Commons, which is elected?

Again, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman puffs himself up into anger about this issue, because the truth is that the original Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, following the events of 11 September, was taken in three days—the whole Bill. Its Second Reading took place on 19 November, and then there were two days of debates in Committee and on Third Reading—so three days in total. We are devoting two days to one aspect of that Bill, as opposed to the entire Bill, which took three days. Therefore, we are entitled to ask for the House's understanding in the circumstances.

As for the other point about timing, yes, the recess has come between my last business statement and now. I have come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, and one of the reasons why there has been some delay—I genuinely make no criticism about this—is that the Prime Minister wanted to consult both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats. That consultation took place on Friday, and I do not think that it could have taken place beforehand. That is one of the reasons why we are proceeding in this way.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about a ministerial statement on Stansted airport. You will probably be aware that, last Friday, while the House was not sitting, the High Court upheld a series of challenges against the Government's air transport White Paper. The judgment found that the Department for Transport had acted unfairly, that it had withheld some Government evidence and that it had prejudged the planning process, thus blighting people's homes not just in my constituency but in those of a number of other right hon. and hon. Members.

It was therefore expected that the Secretary of State for Transport would come to the House to make an oral statement, enabling us to question him, but instead all we have been given is a short written statement. Given the hardship caused to people in my constituency and others, and the fact that the court judgment, which runs to more than 109 pages, directly questions Government policy, should hon. Members not also have the chance to question the Minister? Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any indication that the Secretary of State for Transport intends to come to the House to answer for himself and for his rather ragged and incomprehensible Government policy?

The Minister has worked within the rules of the House, and it is for me to ensure that the rules that the House has made are applied properly. The hon. Gentleman could apply for an Adjournment debate, which would allow him to question the Minister, and of course, he could table parliamentary questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 14 July 1997, there were points of order about reports that the BBC intended to drop "Yesterday in Parliament", replacing it with some kind of panel discussion. As you will probably recall, as a result of public and parliamentary pressure, the programme was not axed but put on a more limited channel. I raise the point of order again today because it has been reported in the Evening Standard that it is expected that the programme will be dropped. It is true that that is not official, but a kind of softening up exercise is probably taking place so that there will be less controversy when it is dropped.

I hope that the BBC will reconsider the matter if it is indeed true that it intends to drop the programme. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is an obligation on the part of a public service broadcasting organisation to report the proceedings of Parliament. The decisions taken here are important to many people. Indeed, the debate referred to in the previous exchanges will surely be important to people who want to hear what is happening in the House of Commons. Will you therefore use your authority as the Speaker of the House of Commons to try to ensure that the programme is not axed and that the BBC recognises its obligation to report Parliament? It always claims that it accepts that obligation, and the last time the subject arose, everyone agreed—there was no controversy—that it should not axe the programme. I hope that you will do what you can to ensure that both the evening programme and the morning programme are retained.

rose—

rose—

First let me answer the hon. Gentleman. I have given before in the House the advice that we should not believe everything that is put in a newspaper. Certain Select Committees of the House can call officials of the BBC and question them on their stewardship. My worry is more about today in Parliament than "Yesterday in Parliament".

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The judgment about the airports White Paper found that the Government's actions had been unlawful because they had not consulted properly on the options for Stansted or consulted at all about the situation at Luton airport. In those circumstances, it would be very helpful for local residents and others to know what the timetable will be for the proper consultations that will now have to take place. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to make an oral statement now that he has already made a written one? Is there any bar to his doing that? Is such a statement possible if, in the light of the comments made, he decides that he wishes to make one?

That might well be in order, but I certainly do not want to be drawn into the argument.

My point of order relates to what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said. Would it be possible for you in your capacity as Speaker and spokesman for the House to find out from the chairman of the BBC precisely what is intended?

Once again, let me say that the hon. Member for Walsall, North raised the matter because it was reported in a newspaper. I am not prepared to work on that basis, but there is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman raising the matter with the governor of the BBC.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I accept what you said about not believing everything that we read in newspapers, it is unfortunately all too common to read something in newspapers and then be told it in the House of Commons. I read in the newspaper this week that the Government are going to introduce an order in the House to stop the payment of allowances to four Members who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty. That has appeared in the newspapers, but there is nothing on the Order Paper. Would it not have been correct for the House rather than newspaper journalists to have been told first? If it is going to happen, I very much welcome it, but it should have happened a long time ago.

I would prefer it if Ministers came before the House, and I have put that view on the record on many occasions. However, the Leader of the House made the helpful remark that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland hopes to come before the House this week. Such questions can be put to him then.

I shall oppose the programme motion as vigorously as possible for several reasons. It is not yet 4 o'clock on the day of the week on which the House usually sits until 10 pm, so Conservative Members find it difficult to understand why knives have been imposed that will fall arbitrarily and thus deprive the House of an hour's debate and scrutiny of a Bill on which both we and the Liberal Democrats wish to raise several new issues. We failed to secure the number of Committee sittings that we would have liked, but having lost that argument we gave the Bill the fullest possible scrutiny, while being mindful of the timetable that was imposed on us.

The most extraordinary thing occurred because the usual channels were not followed as rigorously as is normal on this occasion. As the walk-on speaking part, I was called on to agree with the usual channels about when the knives should fall. I am sure that the usual channels will not want that to happen in future. An even more extraordinary event occurred because my office today received a faxed copy of a letter from the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who will lead for the Government, and although the time on the fax said that it was received at 16.25 on 21 February, the House will note that it is not yet that time. I then received a hard copy of the same letter in my hand at 3.40 pm, which was only just before we started our proceedings on the Bill. The letter informed me of why the Government have drafted several amendments that were tabled at the last possible moment—Thursday last week.

I do not wish to eat into any more time, but we deplore the Government's rather shabby behaviour because we thought that we had achieved a good working relationship and co-operation, given the circumstances. On a positive note, I am delighted that we have stirred the Government into action and that they have recognised that there are failures in the Bill, as we consistently stated on Second Reading and in Committee. We shall continue to point them out today. As I said, we will oppose the programme motion as vigorously as possible.

May I respond to one or two points made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)? We extended the time available in Committee after discussions through the usual channels, but she struggled to fill that time. Indeed, she had to speak about all sorts of things, such as the long title of the Bill, the short title and who had printed documents, so that she could drag out proceedings.

The hon. Lady's problem is that her party does not understand the Bill or why we want to tackle the issues with which it deals, such as litter, graffiti and other problems that degrade local neighbourhoods. That is why most of the time available on Second Reading was taken up by 18 Labour Members who spoke with authority about the way in which the degradation of local environments affects their constituencies. Only two Conservative Back Benchers spoke, and neither sounded authoritative or convinced about the points that they were making.

The hon. Lady referred to the usual channels, but as far as I could see, they worked with their usual efficiency and co-operated to ensure that there was the opportunity for Conservative Members and for the hon. Lady to have an input on the timetable. The letter that she mentioned was finally drafted and completed to my satisfaction little more than an hour ago. I brought copies to the House to put on the Letter Board and delivered a copy personally to the hon. Lady, after having faxed an advance copy to her office. It is rather strange that rather than welcoming such courtesy, she uses it as an opportunity to make a critical point. I would have thought that that was a trifle ungracious.

We have debated in Committee a Bill of enormous importance to constituents who are represented by Labour Members. However, Conservative Members do not understand it. They even said on Second Reading that the Bill was about urban, not rural, issues. They should tell that to all the farmers who complain about fly-tipping on their land or the cars that are left on their land that must be disposed of. The Bill deals with problems that are important to both urban and rural constituents, so we should move on to debate such issues rather than trying to find piddling excuses to delay the House's proceedings, as the hon. Lady has done.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in favour of the Bill but against the programme motion. However, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said something that concerned me. She suggested that if we agree to the programme motion, we will lose one hour of the time usually allowed for debate. My reading of the motion is that we can go to 10 o'clock. Will you confirm that?

The hon. Gentleman is correct.

4.5 pm

The Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) in his usual robust manner. I was one of those who spoke on Second Reading and who made, according to him, an ill-informed contribution. Whether he meant my contribution I am not sure, but I was chief executive of the largest animal welfare charity in Britain, so I understand a bit more about the care of strays than even he does.

As far as the Minister is concerned, the fact that my hon. Friend has experience means that he is ill-informed.

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

The hon. Gentleman spoke on one clause of a wide-ranging and important Bill. Although he spoke with authority, it meant that 50 per cent. of the contributions by Conservative Members was directed at only one clause.

I am glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology, which was given in his usual charming way.

Having contributed on that specific matter on Second Reading, I could not serve on the Standing Committee—which I wanted to do to press the Minister further—because as a member of the Chairmen's Panel I was next door chairing the Identity Cards Bill, which was in equally invigorating session. What concerns me about the programme motion, on which I hope my hon. Friends divide the House, is where the knives are placed.

I want to question the Minister on amendment No. 11, which deals with dogs. Less than 45 minutes was spent on that subject in Committee. Obviously, I had no opportunity to press him in that forum. Some of my hon. Friends—I note that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), is in the Chamber—have made the point in timetabling debates that not all hon. Members can serve on Standing Committees. If they have duties on other Committees or elsewhere in the House, it is the remaining stages of a Bill's consideration that enable any Member, with the agreement of the Chair, to press the Minister on the detail.

There is no objection to what the Government propose on the matter, and I hope that we will debate it with your consent, Mr. Speaker, but I am concerned that the motion will prevent us from getting to the amendment. Given the time that the Government are allowing for the discussion of the remaining stages, I am not convinced that we will get to it. There may be no time to discuss what happens to the 140,000 stray dogs, which the Committee could consider for only 45 minutes.

My hon. Friend's tenure running the Cats Protection League is rightly celebrated the length and breadth of the land. It certainly qualifies him to contribute at length to our proceedings. As an experienced parliamentarian, does he agree that in trying to explain our opposition to programme motions to the widest audience, it is important to underline to the public that with 44 new clauses and amendments, and only 240 minutes in total in which to do so—assuming, rather unimaginably, there are no votes—the logic is obvious? There is only roughly five minutes for consideration of each amendment. It is manifestly inadequate and an insult to the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend makes a superb point, as always. He also makes a reasonable point. People are not saying that all parts of the Bill are dreadful. I am not saying that although I have a predilection for cat welfare, I do not support the dog welfare charities, and I had a great deal to do with them through the industry arrangements. However, when we reach the relevant part of the Bill, I want to press the Minister on the practicalities of his proposals because the Committee did not have time to do that.

I do not object to the proposals. I hope to support what the Minister is trying to do. There is no party political principle involved in the care of stray dogs. There is no magical Conservative, Labour or Liberal solution to what we do with stray animals. However, we are entitled to press the Government on whether the dramatic changes to the care of what are often violent stray dogs—10 per cent. are out of control—will work. The discussions that I have had with vested interests suggest that it will not do so. Therefore, we should have the opportunity to put such points. I predict that, because of the timetable motion that the Government have put before the House, we will not be able to do so.

The groups outside this building that will have to do the dirty work for us—the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and, more importantly, the dog wardens who have grave doubts about the proposals, as the Minister knows—will want to know what the hot words said in this Chamber will mean on the cold nights across Britain if the proposals become law, as I am sure the Government will ensure. It is a great pity that the Minister has guillotined proceedings on the Bill in this way, and it is a pity that those of us who were unable to serve on the Standing Committee will not have an opportunity to press him further. If for whatever reason we do get a few minutes during the course of the evening, I hope to press him on whether his practical solutions will really work for the benefit of the dogs of Great Britain.

My contribution to the debate on this programme motion will be very brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) made some valuable points. If I may, I shall speak in my capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I am deeply concerned that the time limits on debate imposed by programme motions are preventing Members from undertaking their duties on behalf of the constituents who sent them here. The remaining stages of a Bill are the only occasions during the legislative process when Members of whatever party should have an automatic right to be called.

I accept what the Minister said—this is important legislation. It affects people not only in urban areas but in rural areas. Is it right that people such as my hon. Friend, who have expertise in this area and who would like a greater opportunity to express their views, are prevented because of a programme motion from doing so? There are Members on both sides of the House who have heavy responsibilities and cannot always be in Standing Committee when a clause, new clause or amendment is debated.

Will the Minister take back to the powers that be—the Leader of the House and the usual channels—the message that further consideration should be given to the needs of Back Benchers, who should have an opportunity to have an input during remaining stages? The Procedure Committee which I chair has made recommendations which the Government have, at this stage, not seen fit to accept. I believe that the House will review the situation relating to programming. My hon. Friend has made a good point, so please let us allow Members to make a contribution. The remaining stages of a Bill are the only period during its passage when Members should be guaranteed the ability so to contribute.

I am grateful to have caught your eye in this very short debate, Mr. Speaker, and I shall keep my contribution brief. My hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Conway) and for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) have admirably illustrated the point that these timetable motions are beginning to set a precedent. We find ourselves with too little time in Standing Committee, where debates are guillotined so that certain bits of a Bill are not discussed, and we find exactly the same thing on Report and Third Reading. Too much timetabling and too tight a guillotine on clauses can mean that the Government completely control what and what is not debated at all stages of a Bill. What are we sent here for? We are sent here to debate Bills and to try to amend them on behalf of our constituents. If we are not able to do that, there is very little point in our coming here. A pattern is forming.

This timetable is worse than usual. We might have four hours for debate on Report, yet there is a very tight guillotine on Third Reading, so issues such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred will not be debated and there will be no opportunity to amend the Bill. In the old days, Mr. Speaker, you would have selected what is debated on Third Reading, but the new guillotines and knives mean that you do not have that opportunity. That is an unfortunate precedent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and you must look into.

Question put:—

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 3, line 3, at end insert

'save with the agreement of the owner and occupier of any such dwelling.'.

For the benefit of the House, may I take this opportunity to mention my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests in regard to the Royal Automobile Club? I should also like to mention that I own a modest amount of shares, which are not registrable, in BT and a number of individual company personal equity plans and individual savings accounts in utility companies. In my spare time, I am also undertaking a placement with Network Rail, which has been of great interest.

Speaking to amendment No. 28 gives me the opportunity to mention a loophole in the Bill that came to our attention after the Committee stage. We hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the Government will look favourably on inserting into clause 2 the provision that

"the agreement of the owner and occupier of any such dwelling"

should be taken into account in regard to certain gating orders. This relates to issues raised by farm owners and landowners and, in particular, to concerns raised by the Country Land and Business Association—the CLA.

Given that the hon. Lady has been complaining of insufficient time to scrutinise the Bill, will she tell us why there are no Conservative Back Benchers present to scrutinise it?

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, but I am afraid that she is treading on thin ice. Bearing in mind the huge—and short-lived—majority of Labour Members, I must point out that only one or two of her colleagues are on the Labour Benches at the moment, so she might regret making that remark. Also, Conservative reinforcements are arriving as we speak.

The amendment would add flexibility in regard to when gating orders could be made, and would allow for them to be made if the owner and occupier of the dwelling in question agreed—[Laughter.]

The hon. Lady seems unaware of what has just happened behind her. The empty Conservative Back Benches were occupied briefly by a Conservative Member, who entered stage left and walked all the way to stage right before going straight out of the Chamber, so captivated was he by her words. I remind her that 18 Labour MPs spoke vigorously in support of the Bill on Second Reading. They felt that it was the right Bill because of all the discussions that we have had with everybody about how effective it will be. But I must allow the hon. Lady to get on with her scrutiny.

Indeed. Perhaps if there were fewer interruptions of that low level, the level of scrutiny might be greater.

The Bill as drafted does not allow gating orders, and the associated barriers, to be put in place on a route that forms the principal means of access to a dwelling. In our view, and that of the CLA, that is simply too restrictive. In many cases, the persons most in need of a barrier are those who live in a dwelling and suffer from persistent crime and antisocial behaviour because of the access available on that right of way. Once made, the gating orders will be flexible and need not prohibit access completely. The amendment would add flexibility in this regard, and would allow for a gating order to be made when the owner of the dwelling agreed to it. I submit that this would be a minor but beneficial improvement, and that it addresses some of the points put to us that we did not have the opportunity to raise in Committee.

On the face of it, I suppose it might seem not unreasonable for residents to agree to curtail their own access, but they would also be curtailing access for a wide range of others who may have a legitimate purpose for having access. For instance, this proposal could hamper the delivery of mail and of other services for which providing access keys might not be practical.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) says that she was briefed on this concern by the CLA, but I have to say that the CLA has not raised it with me, although I speak to it regularly. The legislation is intended to provide for gating back and side alleys to deal with problems that have been experienced in inner urban areas. It is not intended to provide for gating the principal means of access.

I see the purpose of proposed new section 129B(4) as ensuring that the legislation is not used for purposes for which it is not intended. For that reason, I suggest that the hon. Lady withdraw her amendment.

With some disappointment, we learn that the Minister does not seem to have grasped the reasonable points that we made and is unable to offer the assurance we seek. However, I am sure that there will be opportunities—when the Secretary of State introduces regulations, for example—for the CLA to be consulted further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6 — Abandoned vehicles

'In the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3), after section 2 (offence of unauthorised abandonment of vehicles etc.) insert—

"(1) A vehicle shall be deemed to be abandoned if—

(a) there are recent observations or evidence regarding its inactivity;

(b) there has been no activity regarding it on the DVLA's database for a continuous period of 5 years;

(c) the number plates and Vehicle Identification Number have been removed;

(d) no Statutory Off Road Notification has ever been notified and recorded on its DVLA record;

(e) the vehicle is burnt out;

(f) the vehicle is deemed to have no value; or

(g) the vehicle is a hazard."'. —[Miss McIntosh.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 12, in clause 3, page 5, line 41, leave out

'he proves to the satisfaction of the court that.'.

Government amendment No. 24.

Amendment No. 13, in clause 4, page 6, line 18, leave out

'he proves to the satisfaction of the court that.'.

Amendment No. 14, in clause 4, page 6, line 26, leave out

'he proves to the satisfaction of the court that.'.

Government amendment No. 25.

For the benefit of the House, I should say in discussing this little group that I wish to press amendment No. 12 to a vote.

In a moment, I shall say how amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are linked. First, however, I urge the Minister to look sympathetically on new clause 6. We believe it is important to have a definition of an abandoned vehicle, but—strangely, in the circumstances relating to this part of the Bill—there is no such definition. Indeed, there is no such definition anywhere in the legislation, nor is there a definition of a vehicle fit for destruction.

In 2002–03, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions consulted on proposals to speed up abandoned car removal. That mainly involved shortening the statutory notice periods—15 days on private land and seven on a highway. The consultation resulted in no action, and it was generally understood that that was because of the concern expressed about historic and restorable vehicles, particularly in relation to when people were away on business or on holiday.

There were also understood to be Human Rights Act 1998 concerns about the right to property and whether the rules were widely enough understood. Concern was also expressed that many local authorities had difficulties in assessing vehicles and judging them to be abandoned. There were calls, albeit by the DTLR in its consultation, for a statutory definition and guidance.

Many local authorities were concerned about having to pay compensation, although it was suggested that motor trade assessors could be used to estimate value. Other concerns involved value, what is personal value, what is market value and how those should be defined.

Since that consultation, many local authorities have established links to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database. Indeed, some are using the DVLA's untaxed removal powers, which is probably the best way forward. A definition of abandoned vehicles has been difficult to get to grips with, but it was felt that this was the right time to have a go. On the criteria in relation to what should establish a definition, a vehicle shall be deemed to be abandoned if a number of factors are in place: recent observations; evidence relating to its inactivity; no activity regarding it on the DVLA's database for five years, such as road tax or statutory keeper listings; all identifying features, number plates and vehicle identification number removed.

So that I may understand the hon. Lady's new clause better, will she say whether an abandoned vehicle will have to meet all those criteria or just one to be deemed to be abandoned? What consultation has she had with respect to her proposed definition? Has she taken advice from the Local Government Association, for example, or others who would have to implement this definition?

I am not disclosing a secret by saying that the Automobile Association provided that definition, and it has had several discussions and followed closely how effectively it would be implemented. There would be no point in having a definition that did not work in practice. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that point.

Not all the criteria would have to be met, but they are indicative criteria. The two most useful would probably be statutory off-road notification, which is the official declaration that a vehicle will not be used on the public highway—every vehicle in normal circumstances must be taxed or have been given SORN, as being in limbo or any other status is simply not permissible—and the vehicle identification number. The VIN is unique to each vehicle, marked on its engine—concealed on the chassis, I am told—and gives more information than simple registration numbers. It is therefore important to have a definition. That follows up the loophole that has been found.

Other criteria include: all identification features have been removed, including the number plates and VIN; no SORN has ever been notified and recorded on the DVLA record; the vehicle is burnt out; the vehicle is deemed to have no value, which could be verified by the official motor trade estimate; and the vehicle is a hazard or a danger.

I hope that the Minister will look favourably on new clause 6. Any one of those criteria would be helpful in determining the status of a vehicle as abandoned. The Minister must see the difficulties that the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions got into by failing to have a definition of an abandoned vehicle. This definition is put forward in the same spirit of co-operation as was demonstrated throughout the Committee stage.

I now come to amendments Nos. 12 to 14. Amendment No. 12 relates to clause 3 and touches on one of the most sensitive and contentious parts of the Bill, which time did not permit us to reach in Committee—the imposition of a reverse burden of proof on exposing vehicles for sale on a road. We would prefer to reverse that by removing the offending words,

"he proves to the satisfaction of the court that".

Historically, in England and Wales and in Scotland, in law, it has normally been the case that a party is innocent until proved guilty. This provision reverses that presumption and puts the onus on the accused to prove his innocence. That reverses one of the most fundamental tenets of English law, and we take a grave view of it.

I have looked at the amendment and tried to work out what is behind it. I cannot agree with the hon. Lady, although hers would be a serious charge if it were justified. Surely a court would have to decide whether a person was guilty under clause 3(1) first, and clause 3(2) merely provides an extra protection for an innocent person. There is no change from the basic legal presumption of "innocent until proven guilty". I think that what the hon. Lady has said represents a misreading of the clause.

The hon. Gentleman may not have had time to consider the clause to the extent that we have.

Paragraph 303 of the Government's explanatory notes, on page 47, refers to the court case. I understand from a radio interview in which I took part yesterday that there is already a legal precedent, although I do not know whether it relates to the court case in question. As I have said, we take a serious view of any removal of the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty". Paragraph 303 states:

"The Bill contains a number of new reverse burdens of proof (which means that, to take advantage of a defence provided, the accused is required to demonstrate his innocence once the prosecution has proved certain facts, rather than the prosecution being required to prove the accused's guilt on all issues)."

That is a classic definition of reverse burden of proof.

"A reverse burden can be legal,"

the Government argue,

"where the burden is on the accused to prove that the defence applies to him on a balance of probabilities, or evidential, where the accused must bring sufficient evidence for the defence to be an issue, and then the prosecution must disprove the defence."

The Minister may be able to refer to other cases, but paragraph 304 tells us—I challenge this in amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14—that reverse burdens enjoy a lawfulness confirmed, in the Government's view, by the House of Lords in the cases of Sheldrake in 2004 and R v. Johnstone in 2003,

"where the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the offence and the overall effect is that the accused has a fair trial, and the reverse burden is reasonable, proportionate and in the public interest. The Court of Appeal gave guidance on reverse burdens in AG'S REFERENCE (no 1 of 2004 . . . The European Court of Human Rights has recognised that reverse burdens are lawful in SALABIAKU V FRANCE (1988) . . . and PHILLIPS V UK if the overall presumption of innocence is maintained."

I realise that we are not in court now, but I would argue that the presumption of innocence is overruled in the event of reverse burden of proof.

"The Government believes that the reverse burdens contained in the Bill are within those criteria and seek to promote the general interest of environmental protection. The Government therefore concludes that the new provisions are compatible with Convention rights."

Let me say at this early stage, before the Bill goes to another place, that I believe that the reverse burden of proof has no place in environmental crimes—not that Conservative Members do not accept the seriousness of such crimes, and the frequency with which they are committed. We believe that in a free and fair society and in accordance with the terms of natural justice, there should be no place for a reverse burden of proof.

Amendment No. 13 extends that criterion to clause 4, which deals with repairing vehicles on a road. We propose to leave out the offending words

"he proves to the satisfaction of the court that",

and revert to the presumption that an accused person is innocent until proved guilty. Amendment No. 14 does the same.

I am a new boy to these proceedings as I did not serve on the Committee, unlike the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the Minister and one or two other Members present. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has been detained, so I have taken his place. However, it was with great interest that I prepared for this debate, read Hansard reports of proceedings in Committee and listened to the hon. Member for Vale of York. [Interruption.] Others doubtless also read those reports with great interest.

In principle, the hon. Lady is on to something with new clause 6. I replied to the Government consultation on abandoned vehicles. I do not often reply formally, as a constituency MP, to such consultations, but abandoned vehicles have been a huge problem in my constituency, where we have been pressing the Government to act for some time. Although that consultation was conducted several years ago, it was an important move and it led to some significant changes. In the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, initiatives taken at local level, along with some of the policy changes supported by the Government, have had a major impact in terms of clearing up abandoned vehicles. It was a good consultation, which moved the game forward. The question is: can we go further through the Bill and the new clause?

I agree with the intention behind the hon. Lady's proposal, in that we may well need the benefit of a stricter definition of what counts as an abandoned vehicle. The question is whether she and the AA have produced that definition. On reading it, I am not convinced that she has done so, although I congratulate her on trying. The new clause would lead to two problems. It could prove too weak in some cases by failing to catch some vehicles that are actually abandoned, and prove too strong in others by catching vehicles that have not been abandoned, the lawful owners still having the right to their property. Therefore, there is a danger that the new clause will result in the worst of all possible worlds. I should emphasise that that does not mean that the Government should not try to come up with a suitable definition, perhaps in another place.

In Committee, the Minister said that local authority officers who have to implement such legislation can understand the wording of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which has been clarified through case law. He made a fair point, and it has proven difficult for the AA and the hon. Lady to produce a definition that covers all circumstances. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister is prepared to examine this matter again, and to see whether we can go further than the 1978 Act.

The hon. Lady has just spoken to amendments Nos.12, 13 and 14 and, as I suggested in my intervention, I have some problems with them. She is worried about removing the presumption of innocence. As far as I can see, the Bill and clause 3 do not do that, except in respect of fixed penalty notices.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed our proceedings in Committee and I hope that the Hansard reports have captured the excitement of them. However, he should look at clause 3, which includes the phrase

"if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he was not acting for the purposes of a business of selling motor vehicles."

Normally, it would be up to the courts to prove that that was what such a person was doing. To achieve the same end, surely all that we need to do is to drop the phrase

"he proves to the satisfaction of the court that",

as suggested in our amendment.

I am more than happy to admit that I might have misunderstood, but that is the whole point of this debate: to scrutinise legislation.

It seems to me that the presumption of innocence is taken away with respect to fixed penalty notices, which is the whole point about fixed penalty notices. However, on clause 3, we are talking not about fixed penalty notices but about a court's decision to levy a fine if there has been an appeal. If a case comes before a court, I presume that it will look at it afresh.

The hon. Gentleman talks about removing the presumption of guilt, but he just said that a person was to be "convicted" of an offence, if it were proven, under clause 3(2),

"to the satisfaction of the court that he was . . . acting for the purposes of a business of selling motor vehicles."

There is no reverse presumption, but the provision has the same effect.

My point is that the fixed penalty notice provisions in this and other parts of the Bill remove the presumption of innocence, but that clause 3(2), which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) are so concerned about, offers extra protection for the innocent person. It provides them with a plea at the court, if the matter goes that far. I repeat my initial point that there has been some misunderstanding of the drafting. Everyone in the House would, presumably, agree with the hon. Lady that removing the presumption of innocence before a court would be wrong, but I do not know whether the Conservatives are now against all fixed penalty notices in all circumstances. If so, that is an interesting development, but I had assumed that previously they were not. We are discussing the only removal of the presumption of innocence that appears in the Bill. We understand the hon. Lady's concerns, but if she presses her amendments to the vote, we would have to dissent because we do not believe that her analysis is correct.

I wholeheartedly welcome Government amendments Nos. 24 and 25, because similar amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow in Committee and the Minister undertook to reconsider the points that he made, particularly those relating to whether the fines should move up a category from level 3 to level 4 in order to assist proper prosecution and to act as a sufficient deterrent to persistent offenders. Clearly, the Government have reflected on what my hon. Friend said, so I am sure that he is proud of his influence on the Minister and glad that the Government amendments have been tabled.

The Government amendments and other provisions are very important, but hon. Members will know from their constituencies that when car selling or car repair businesses are set up in communities, they can cause a huge nuisance and great offence to those communities. The Government are right to tackle that problem, and they have our full support. I know of a number of streets and areas in my constituency that have been subject to massive disruption and great inconvenience by such businesses. Vehicles can often take up empty spaces on roads when parking is scarce, and the noise and pollution generated by those businesses are additional problems. The Government are right to act.

Clause 3(1)(a) makes it clear that a person is guilty of an offence if

"he leaves two or more motor vehicles parked on the same road".

Having read the explanatory notes and the Committee debate, I wonder whether the terms of that provision might be somewhat restrictive. I know of areas in my constituency that have suffered because a local person has caused great problems by selling or repairing vehicles on two or three adjoining roads. I understand why the phrase "on the same road" has been used, but its terms could be too restrictive for some communities. I am not asking the Minister to promise tonight that he will amend the provision, but I would be grateful if he reflected further on it. As I said, in parts of my constituency, the current provision would not deal with the problem that the Minister wants to solve.