---

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): While I fully agree with the Home Secretary that a life sentence for murder should mean going to prison for life, and while I welcome the review, does he not accept that what occurred yesterday was a result of the unreasonable nature of the programme motion imposed on the House? Can he not persuade the Leader of the House, who has joined him on the Treasury Bench, to look again at the Procedure Committee's reasonable proposals, which the Government did not accept? Limitation of debate on Report and on Third
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1585
 
Reading—the only truly democratic stages in a Bill's passage, when everyone can participate—should be ended.

Mr. Blunkett: No, I do not accept that proposition and, of course, it will not be part of the review.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): I think that we all agree that it is perfectly possible to have a sensible and rational debate about reform of the law on murder. However, who will chair the review and who will serve on the review committee?

Mr. Blunkett: I have said that I will lay before the House the terms of reference, the procedure and the way in which evidence will be drawn from the Home Office. I promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that I will send him a copy personally.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is usually a good timekeeper, but he arrived four minutes after the statement started, so I cannot call him. I call the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I refer the Home Secretary to the answer that he gave his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), and remind him that the law in Northern Ireland is close in its fundamentals to that of England and Wales on this matter? What contact has he had with the Northern Ireland Office, and what steps will he take to ensure that, while the House is responsible for enacting criminal law with regard to Northern Ireland, major changes will be replicated there as they are made here? How will he tackle the difficulty, which he knows full well, of getting the Northern Ireland Office to keep the criminal law of Northern Ireland in step with the law here?

Mr. Blunkett: I am familiar with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, which his hon. Friends have made on a number of occasions. I am in very close touch with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as he would expect, and I would be happy to write to him about the way in which we intend to proceed to ensure that we get this right with regard to the particular position of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Does the Home Secretary accept that by imposing the mandatory sentence of programming on all legislation he is party to the murder of proper parliamentary scrutiny, which is one of our primary responsibilities in the House? In the light of his experience, particularly in the past 24 hours, is there any chance that he will back the case for the defence of Parliament?

Mr. Blunkett: I think that the shadow Home Secretary called for an intelligent debate, and I hope that we will have one.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con): There are two issues here—first, the serious need for an intelligent
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1586
 
review, as the Home Secretary rightly said, of the question of partial defences for murder, and, secondly, the great concern shared by parliamentarians from all parties about the Government's disgraceful attempt at news management. His admittedly gracious apology would be more convincing if he and Ministers throughout Government were not serial offenders. Parliamentarians from all parties would understand why they repeatedly act in that way if they read the biography of the former MP for Hartlepool, Mr. Mandelson. I bought a remaindered copy for £2.99, and it shows that ever since Labour were in opposition their spokesmen have attempted that kind of news management. If the tactic succeeds they have won, but if it fails, they make hollow apologies.

Mr. Blunkett: I have always believed that Peter Mandelson was good value for money, and the hon. Gentleman has just affirmed that that is the case. If my Department had been intent on news management it would not have issued the press release until the Third Reading debate had begun. Having issued it early, we can hardly be accused of hiding it.

Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): The Home Secretary avoided answering one important question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). Is it not true that he is in serious dispute with the Solicitor-General about whether provocation should constitute a partial defence for murder and that that dispute has now reached such a stage that the Government are seen as indecisive? The review is all about trying to settle the dispute and get the Government out of this mess?

Mr. Blunkett: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has repeated the mistake made by the shadow Home Secretary, and has confused a sensible discussion about whether we should have a patch or a long-term solution to provocation with the issues surrounding corporate manslaughter. The two are related, but will result in entirely different solutions in the legislation that we will publish shortly.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): The Home Secretary would have found it difficult to make today's statement on Third Reading, because he would only have been able to talk about what is in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill at the moment. We had a long discussion in Committee about the use of provocation as a partial defence, which the Government refused to accept, although it was highly pertinent to the Bill. Could he tell us in clear terms what is his view of provocation as a partial defence? If he cannot do so today, can he tell us when the review will be completed and he will therefore be able to do so?

Mr. Blunkett: If we had wanted to accept the amendment, we would have done so. I dealt with the matter on Second Reading, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber to hear me do so. It is precisely because there are differing views and because we need to get this right in the long term that we established the review. I am just sorry that the hon. Gentleman is too churlish to say, "What a good idea. Let's try and get this right over the next 18 months and find a lasting solution."
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1587
 

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): I do not think that the Home Secretary was here on Tuesday, when the House debated programming. On that day, the Leader of the House attempted to kid us all that there was great consensus about how programming operates in practice. I think that the events of last night show that that whole argument has now gone for a ball of chalk.

I wish to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) from the Front Bench. Can the Home Secretary give us an assurance that the review will include in its conclusion a clear definition of what constitutes reasonable force in a defence of family and property? This is clearly a vital area of the law that remains confused, not least as a Home Office spokesman said on being challenged last week that the Home Office does not have a definition of reasonable force. If the Home Secretary's own Department cannot define it, how can he expect anybody out there in the real world to know what it is either? Will he give us a guarantee that the review—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Home Secretary.

Mr. Blunkett: The judiciary has been defining reasonable force over a long period. In dealing with the use and the fear of violence and the defence of property, it would be sensible to consider the issues where they apply to murder and manslaughter. However, the review is not about a campaign by The Sunday Telegraph; it is about a serious issue of trying to square circles that have remained un-squared for the past 50 years. I sincerely hope that we will be able to get it right and that, when the review is over, we will be able to bring it back to the House of Commons and have exactly the kind of debate that hon. Members have been seeking this afternoon.

 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1588
 

Business of the House

1.1 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 of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 1 November—Second Reading of the Gambling Bill.

Tuesday 2 November—Remaining stages of the Children Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 3 November—Motions relating to the Senior Salaries Review Body's triennial review of parliamentary pay and allowances, followed by a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the Sessional Orders and Resolutions.

The relevant motions and explanatory memorandums for the debate will be tabled today and made available on my office website: www.commonsleader.gov.uk.

Thursday 4 November—A debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 5 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 8 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Tuesday 9 November—Remaining stages of the Civil Partnership Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 10 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Human Tissue Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 11 November—Opposition half-day, un-allotted. There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Friday 12 November—The House will not be sitting.

---