---

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): It would be ungracious of me not to thank the Leader of the House for providing time to debate two Procedure Committee reports, one on programming and the other on Sessional Orders and resolutions.

On next week's debate on programming, which will include the subject of short speeches, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, following what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, the Committee is dominated by Labour Members and we agreed a report that we thought produced a balance on programming which would make it more acceptable to the House as a whole and all the political parties within it? Even if he will not change his mind at this stage on his response to it and the motions that he has tabled, will he guarantee that the matter will be decided on a genuinely free vote? The Procedure Committee, which I chair with great honour, is deeply concerned about the way in which the House can do the job that people elect it to do.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is one of the last people in the House whom I would ever accuse of being ungracious.

I understand the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. We thought carefully about the Procedure Committee's recommendations and compared them with the Modernisation Committee's recommendations. Throughout this time, we have tried to build a consensus on programming. Some of the points that we have taken on board show that that is the case—[Interruption.] I understand that there is a Liberal-Conservative coalition on the subject, but it would be interesting to know whether the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would reverse programming if
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1031
 
they ever got into government together. I think that it has worked well in the interests of all Members, not just the Government.

Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will recall that when the draft Disability Discrimination Bill was published it was welcomed with great acclaim by disabled people, their organisations and hon. Members on both sides of the House. He will also recall the fanfare of approval it received in the report of the Joint Committee that scrutinised it, on which I had the honour of serving. Indeed, the Government's response to that report was also favourably received. Will he assure the House that there is no reason why the Bill cannot make rapid and successful progress, with support from both sides of the House, from now on?

Mr. Hain: I agree that the Bill is vital to the interests of people with disabilities. That is why the Government were anxious to introduce it as soon as possible, which is why I announced last week that we would introduce it shortly. It is therefore with great disappointment that we discovered that the Opposition in the House of Lords are trying to block its early progress. It is not for me to go into the usual channels' negotiations, but we made a proposal that would have allowed early progress on the Bill, and that has not been supported. That is very disappointing. I hope that the Opposition in the House of Lords reconsider their decision.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): I also welcome the debate on Sessional Orders and Parliament square, some 11 months after I first asked for it.

Will the Leader of the House now find time for a debate on police authority funding? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House spent yesterday talking to their police authorities. Hampshire constabulary and others are deeply concerned that the resources available to the Home Office will not even fund a standstill budget next year. The opportunity of getting the council tax payer to fund the difference is not available because of capping. Does he want to fight a possible general election against a background of reduced police authority funding? Can we help him avoid that by debating it soon?

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remark. Perhaps I did not make this clear to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), but let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a free vote on all House matters, as there always is.

On police authority funding, there is no question of cuts. The Government have put record investment into policing. Police numbers are now at an historic high. Some 12,500 extra police officers have been recruited since we came into power. Any blips or difficulties in the process of settling individual police authority budgets in the coming year should be seen against that background of continued substantial increase in police funding.
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1032
 

Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the abuse by some hon. Members and political parties of the parliamentary procedure for submitting written questions so that they can create a dishonest league table—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member would act dishonestly.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): Has the Leader of the House had a chance to see the report issued this week by the Trading Standards Institute on premium rate fraud? Is he aware that the TSI calculated that phone-line fraudsters could be raking in as much as £1 billion a year? I have had complaints about that from people in my constituency. In Ashbourne there has been a bill for more than £500; in the Matlock area there has been a bill for more than £200; and in the Belper area there has been a bill for £200. This is a big fraud. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to tell us what action she will take to stamp out this fraud?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take close note of what he said and respond to it. If there is an opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House in future, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will take it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): May I suggest that my right hon. Friend's professed liking for Select Committees is in no small part due to the warm welcome he received earlier this year from the Procedure Committee and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)? I regard with dismay my right hon. Friend's comments that the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, whose arrival in the House so many Labour Members have looked forward to, may be derailed because of actions in the other place by unelected others.

Mr. Hain: I share the dismay. It is astonishing that the Conservatives, in the main, in the House of Lords have been unable to agree to a sensible proposition to timetable debate, which would allow Second Reading to take place and therefore early progress to be made so that the Bill could be carried over into the next Session and would reach the statute book earlier than would otherwise be the case. I hope that they will reconsider their decision, because the Bill provides vital extra protection for people with disabilities and we as a Government are determined to deliver it.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): The Leader of the House has already acknowledged in earlier exchanges the difficulties for Silverstone from the grim news about the British grand prix. He sought to steer an elegant course between the parties involved and any decision that is taken, yet he claimed credit for the actions of the Minister for Sport and Tourism and other Government Departments with an interest in the matter. My concern is to support the outcome constructively. Will the right
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1033
 
hon. Gentleman please arrange for an early debate in Government time so that the whole matter can be thoroughly discussed?

Mr. Hain: It may come to that, but let us see what happens in the meantime. The hon. Gentleman may have other opportunities to raise the matter. I know he has always been a big supporter of the British grand prix in every respect, not just because it is in his constituency. The Government have provided quite a lot of funding for Silverstone, both for the new road that has transformed the previously chaotic traffic arrangements around there, and to support the development of high performance engineering in the area around Silverstone. We are as committed as he is to the British grand prix. Unfortunately we do not control those who make the decision on it.

Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): May I say how much I agree with the remarks of the Leader of the House about the need for the House to take European scrutiny and European issues far more seriously than it currently does? Will he indicate a timetable for the implementation of his suggestions for reform?

Mr. Hain: The Modernisation Committee is considering how we might improve the scrutiny and mainstreaming of European issues in the House. We are due to issue a report when that has been completed. At the risk of repetition, I come back to what I said earlier: the main opportunity that the House will now have, which we have never had before, is to vet any new proposal from the European Commission for legislation, because we will have that right under the new European constitutional treaty. That is why I hope that Conservative Members and others will support the Government in promoting the European constitutional treaty, which for the first time gives the House democratic rights over what the European Commission initiates.

---