---

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

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

1.25 pm

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

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

We all know that there is no urgency. The Government conceded that there is no urgency by their implementation date. Leaving that aside, they could have introduced this Bill at any time in the past seven years had they chosen to do so. They did not, which is an implied recognition that there is no urgency.
 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1289
 

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

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain why the definition of non-urgency will not lead to eternal procrastination in this place, as that has been the recipe in the past?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Hogg: That is a sound point, with which I agree.
 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1290
 

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

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

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

Sir Patrick Cormack: That could take an hour.

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

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

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

Let me now say something about the question of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire made an important point about that.
 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1291
 
The programme motion does not allow for a Committee stage, a Report stage or any amendment whatever. That is objectionable for at least two reasons. First, I have never encountered a Bill that, even in its own terms, could not be improved. My hon. Friend pointed out that even those of us who are root and branch against the Bill, as I am, would like, if there must be legislation, at least to see competent and effective legislation. Compensation, for instance, is a vital issue, but we cannot table a compensation amendment because there is no amendment that can be tabled.

---