---

Anti-Semitism

22. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): If she will make a statement on her policy towards prosecution of anti-Semitic hate crimes. [169199]

The Solicitor General: In July last year, the Crown Prosecution Service published its new policy and guidance for prosecutors on cases of racist and religious crime.

Mr. Dismore : First, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your good sense in lifting the sub judice rule to allow me to ask a question about Abu Hamza. For once, we have some good sense on that issue.
 
29 Apr 2004 : Column 1004
 

Why, when there is such overwhelming evidence of incitement to race hatred, violence and support for terrorism by such people as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohamed, has no prosecution taken place? If newspapers such as The Sun can mount highly effective investigations to produce the evidence that would justify prosecution—and, I believe, conviction—why cannot the police and the CPS do the same?

The Solicitor General: A file from the police is with the Crown Prosecution Service at the moment. I cannot say more about that case at this stage, although I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about Mr. Speaker having lifted the sub judice rule. My hon. Friend will be aware that the CPS is independent, and when it is actively considering a case such as this, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt or prejudice any decision about to be made. I do not think that the House would thank me for that.

 
29 Apr 2004 : Column 1005
 

Business of the House

12.32 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 3 May—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 4 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill.

Wednesday 5 May—Opposition half-day [10th Allotted Day] (Part One). There will be a half-day debate entitled "The Government's Failure to Solve the UK Housing Crisis" on an Opposition motion, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, followed by a debate on genetically modified crops on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Thursday 6 May—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill.

Friday 7 May—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 10 May—Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 11 May—Remaining stages of the Housing Bill.

Wednesday 12 May—Second Reading of the Age-Related Payments Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first report of the Procedure Committee on estimates and appropriation procedure.

Thursday 13 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 14 May—Private Members' Bills.

The House may wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June.

Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. May we have two days on Report for the Pensions Bill, and will he ensure that that debate does not fall on 18 May, when the National Pensioners Convention has its parliament in Blackpool? The Leader of the House will understand how important it is for the Minister for Pensions to be present there to hear the robust views of the pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) will also be there on that day.

When can we expect to receive the Home Secretary's Bill to prevent courts from releasing psychopathic terrorists who have been detained while sane?

What has happened to the statutory instrument denying welfare benefits to non-working east European migrants, which is due before 1 May? Can we expect it tomorrow?
 
29 Apr 2004 : Column 1006
 

The Leader of the House will be aware that on this morning's "Today" programme, Giscard d'Estaing, president of the Convention on the Future of Europe and architect of the EU constitution, confirmed that Britain could reject the constitution and still remain a full member of the European Union. Is there any reason why the Leader of the House should not now consult the Electoral Commission about the question to be asked in the referendum and swiftly introduce the necessary paving Bill, and will he tell us about the timetable today?

Finally, why is it that everything that the Government touch seems to go wrong? We are told this morning that Royal Mail is losing 1 million letters a year—particularly in London—through theft, incompetence, cannabis on the job and a chaotic culture. Does the Leader of the House understand the sheer bloomin' misery caused to pensioners when their money does not arrive, or to the person whose credit card is stolen? What is the response of Ministers? Apparently, they say, "Oh, we intend to watch tonight's television programme." Should they not have controls in place, and when will they explain to the House what they are doing about this scandal?

Mr. Hain: I was intrigued to discover which questions the shadow Leader of the House would ask. The polling organisation ICM has refused to work for the Tories on the ground that they are doctoring its questions. This is the first known case of a pollster sacking a client to protect its integrity. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is in the same boat.

I shall certainly give very serious consideration to the hon. Gentleman's request for two days on Report for the Pensions Bill. He makes a fair point about the parliamentary time needed to debate it, particularly given the large number of Government amendments to it. He will appreciate that it is a very important Bill that protects workers from being robbed of their pensions. We have seen such tragic cases recently, but of course it was under the Tories that such circumstances were created and allowed to continue.

On the Home Secretary's preventing courts from releasing psychopathic terrorists, he of course keeps this issue under constant review. If extra powers are needed—[Interruption.] There are very tough powers in existence, for which we are constantly criticised, including by Conservative Members. The statutory instrument to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be laid tomorrow, so he can rest content on that point.

I have a transcript of Giscard d'Estaing's remarks on the "Today" programme about the European Union constitution. His point was that Britain would be pushed to "the edge" of the European Union if ours was the only country that did not sign up to the new constitutional treaty. If the other 24 countries agreed to it and Britain did not, we would be left behind and there would be consequences. One consequence of being on the edge would be precisely the kind of Tory incompetence that we saw during European negotiations on BSE. The Tories failed to create the circumstances in which we could work with our colleagues to solve the problem.

On the working time directive, the problems that we have sought to unravel in recent months are precisely those that the Conservatives foisted on us when in
 
29 Apr 2004 : Column 1007
 
government by not negotiating the directive properly to protect British interests. We do not want to be on the edge of Europe; we want to be in the middle of Europe, influencing its direction, and that is where this Government will place us.

In a quaint remark at the end of his questions, the hon. Gentleman asked why everything that this Government touch goes wrong. What about the record number of jobs in the economy, and the lowest inflation and mortgage rates for a generation? These are the things that people really care about, not the antics of Conservative Front Benchers at Prime Minister's questions and business questions.

On the substantive issue of the allegations made against Royal Mail staff, they are very serious and Royal Mail's investigations unit will look into them. That process will continue. The unit has a record of conducting investigations over a number of years. We as Members of Parliament depend on our local Royal Mail service—on our local postie—and have a good relationship with the staff, who are admired throughout the country for the fantastic job that they do. I do not think that we should attack them willy-nilly, in the disgraceful way that the hon. Gentleman did.

---