| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: Yes, on the question of immigration visas, we have consistently put in place practices and procedures to tackle any abuses of the visa system or the immigration procedures, and the Home Secretary gave a written ministerial statement today that provides details of our response to the inquiry that was set up into what went wrong in Bulgaria and Romania. That is available for everyone to see.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab):
Is the Leader of the House aware that when he gave the business for the next two weeks, he also announced the recess for 22 July, which means that after the next two weeks' business, there are only three more weeks left before the long recess? He will know that I have called for the introduction of a ban on fox hunting, and we need that before the long recess. There are now three weeks available for us to show that most Labour MPs are in favour of banning hunting, most Tory MPs are in favour of the opposite, the Liberals are split down the middle—so there is nothing neater in electoral terms—and UKIP members will be fighting one another like Kilkenny cats. There is not a subject under the sun that is better suited to us, and to raising our morale in the constituencies, than a ban on fox hunting. Get on with it!
17 Jun 2004 : Column 915
Mr. Hain: I am with my hon. Friend in sentiment all the way. As he knows, the House voted for a ban on hunting and an end to cruelty to animals by a landslide majority, and I was in the same Lobby as he, with the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The House's view on the matter is overwhelmingly clear, and I hope that Opposition Members will give a guarantee that the Conservatives in the House of Lords will not seek again to threaten the primacy of the House of Commons on this or other matters. I can tell my hon. Friend that when the time is opportune, an announcement will be made. The Government's intention is, as I have consistently said, to resolve the matter.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): May we have a statement, either before or during Tuesday's debate, on the Government's intentions on opinion polls, their use by newspapers and their potential for distortion of the electoral process? The Prime Minister's answer yesterday implied that that is simply a party matter, but I suggest that it is a much bigger issue. It affects every member of the House and the whole integrity of the political process. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1294, which a large number of Members on both sides have signed.
[That this House regrets the decline of self-regulation of public opinion polling companies in the United Kingdom; is deeply concerned that there are no sufficient checks on the integrity of polling or polling organisations; further expresses concern at the proliferation of non-scientific/empirical polling, in particular the use of techniques designed to secure the results favoured by those who commission the polls, and lack of transparency in the methodology employed; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to conduct a thorough investigation into the integrity, honesty and professionalism of the polling industry and, if indicated, introduce regulation.]
May I also draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some specifics from last week, when the poll YouGov and the Evening Standard purported to demonstrate that Messrs. Livingstone and Norris were neck and neck when they were clearly nothing of the sort? The same poll in The Daily Telegraph overestimated and grossly promoted UKIP, when that was clearly inaccurate. Finally, the exit poll, which is quite difficult to get wrong, was simply wrong. May I suggest that the whole way in which polls are regulated or self-regulated should be examined?
On a quite separate matter, will the Leader of the House see whether the Home Secretary can come to the House, next week or the week after, to discuss some very important national lessons emerging from the Caroline Dickinson murder inquiry? The right hon. Gentleman may know that the family are constituents of mine. I took John and Sue Dickinson to see a succession of Ministers about the important lessons that need to be learned from the inquiry.
The chilling truth is that, without the heroic persistence of John Dickinson and the incredibly lucky break that occurred when an immigration officer guessed what might have happened with the person found to be the culprit in due course, no case could have been brought and no conviction secured. That is a shocking reflection on the adequacy of cross-Europe co-operation.
17 Jun 2004 : Column 916
I do not deny for a moment that there has been a great improvement in that co-operation since 1996, and I am grateful to Ministers for their response to our lobbying on this matter. However, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to look carefully to see whether there can be greater co-ordination between the investigating forces across Europe? In particular, will he look at the question of the harmonisation of DNA testing and analysis? That has not been possible in the past, but it was a very important feature of the Dickinson case. We all know that serious crime crosses national boundaries. Crime-stoppers must do so as well.
Mr. Hain: First, I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Gentleman stood by the Dickinson family as they went through this dreadful experience. I agree that Mr. Dickinson showed enormous persistence and courage, and great skill, in ensuring that justice was done.
It is a pretty shocking episode. The almost accidental way in which justice was eventually done exposes a series of matters, not least the question of harmonisation of DNA testing. Work on that is being done, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take careful note of the interest of the hon. Gentleman in these matters, and of the points that he has raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about opinion polls. I am sure that he does not blame those polls for the fact that the Liberal Democrat candidate in the London mayoral elections polled only 15 per cent., but he makes a fair and important point. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the chairman of the Labour party will consult with other parties on what is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, an all-party matter.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend seen the editorial in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph? It denigrates the proposals by the Modernisation Committee that people visiting the House should get a greater welcome and that the term "strangers" should no longer be used.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Rubbish!
Joan Ruddock: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the question posed by the newspaper. It asked:
"Why . . . should Parliament, a serious, grown-up institution, change its well tried ways to attract the attentions of those too young to be interested in it?"
Is that merely a reflection of the elderly profile of Telegraph readers, or is something more serious going on?
Mr. Hain: My parents-in-law are Telegraph readers, so I do not want to insult too many of them. However, I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the editorial was extraordinary. It began by saying:
"The heart sinks at proposals to make the House of Commons more accessible to young people."
In our democracy, the young persons' vote is declining, as is their interest in politics. It seems that The Daily Telegraph has the enthusiastic support of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the former shadow Leader of the House.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman nods, from his mediaeval posture on the other side of the House. The newspaper seems to want to turn off young people and young voters. The Modernisation Committee is an all-party committee, with Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour members. We feel that the House of Commons should send out a loud and clear signal to all members of the public—and to young voters in particular—that this is their House of Commons. They are entitled to be able to visit it more easily, to be given a better welcome and to have their concerns addressed. A whole series of practical and radical measures have been suggested to enable Parliament to be better connected with the public. We ought to welcome that.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): I thank the Leader of the House very much for arranging the debate on Zimbabwe. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will open the debate, as it is a matter of very considerable importance. To some of us it is as important as the matters relating to Iraq, but my question is to do with how the House operates. Will the right hon. Gentleman take very seriously the problems facing many Select Committees, which are finding it difficult to get a quorum of members for important meetings? Particularly on the Government side, it appears that members of the Select Committee are being appointed to other Committees—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |