---

Mr. Hain: I know that that is an important issue locally; the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is important in his area. However, I am sure that he will
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1595
 
not dispute the fact that there has been record investment in and funding for our police throughout the country. There are now 12,500 more police officers since the Labour Government came to power compared with 1,000 fewer police officers under the previous Administration's Home Secretary, the current Leader of the Opposition. The Government cannot be criticised for want of support and funding but we must deal with specific anomalies.

David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Although I have sympathy with my right hon. Friend for what happened to him, would not it be useful if Ministers made it clear that no amount of intimidation, hooliganism and thuggery will stop the Government upholding the House's decision to bring hunting with dogs to an end? Since time is getting short, when will the Parliament Act be used? When will we demonstrate that we will not allow a veto by the House of Lords, as happened on a previous occasion?

Mr. Hain: I know of my hon. Friend's passionate feelings, which he has regularly raised, about the matter. The Government's position is clear; we await the return of the Bill from the House of Lords so that we can ascertain the form that it takes.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's sympathy but there is an issue about the security of Members of Parliament in conducting their parliamentary business in their constituencies or through public engagements. It is one thing to put a forceful argument or stage a protest to make one's point—I have done that in the past on apartheid and other issues, and I defend the right of the supporters of hunting to demonstrate—but it is another to engage in violence, thuggery and personal attacks on Members of Parliament, Ministers or otherwise, as happened to me last night. It would be in the interests of the pro-hunt position to stick to the argument, make the case and refrain from violence and thuggery.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): May we have a debate soon on the adequacy of ministerial written answers? On 13 October, I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who carries out a Labour party function at public expense, to list his official engagements since his appointment to his current Cabinet post. He answered in what Lloyd George described as "the perfect way"; he told the truth without giving any information, replying:

"I have had a range of official meetings".—[Official Report, 20 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 720W.]

That is all very well, but in 2004, the Government should be a little more candid about what their Cabinet Ministers get up to. The next time the Leader of the House is a beneficiary of one of the "range of meetings" with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will he encourage him to answer questions candidly and openly?

Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is always candid and open when answering parliamentary questions verbally or in writing. The allegation that he is conducting work on behalf of the Labour party at public expense is nonsense. His
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1596
 
appointment is in accordance with the normal rules of appointment for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and he is co-ordinating Government policy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): The previous question comes a bit rich from the Tory party, which is picking up £4 million of taxpayers' money in Short money and finished fourth in the Hartlepool by-election. It is not money well spent.

May we have a statement about council housing? At the Labour party conference, the idea of the fourth option—namely allowing local authorities to continue to have local council housing—was carried by a massive majority. Will there be a statement on that? I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is busy in the north-east, but when he comes back, there is a big meeting at Congress house tomorrow to follow up the successful resolution. The campaign will carry on and we should have a statement to ensure that the conference decision is inviolable.

Mr. Hain: I understand the force of my hon. Friend's point. The Deputy Prime Minister attended a Cabinet meeting this morning, fresh from the campaign trail. I believe that the campaign will be victorious for my right hon. Friend. He deserves that for all the effort that he has put in. I am sure that he will want to take careful note of my hon. Friend's point.

Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP): There is all sorts of speculation this morning, seemingly to distract attention from the unpopular decision to have the Black Watch in the American sector, that an early decision will be made about the future and fate of the Scottish regiments. Will the Leader of the House assure me that no decision about the regiments' future will taken without fully consulting the House and without a properly debated motion? Does he agree that rushing through the amalgamation as the Black Watch are being deployed would amount to the worst sort of betrayal?

Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint on the Iraq war. It is different from that of the Government and it is perfectly honourable to hold it. However, to argue that the Black Watch does not play a vital role, even in its redeployment, in protecting other British soldiers, Scots included, in the south and elsewhere in Iraq, is nonsense. The redeployment will ensure that all our forces can be better protected from the terrorist enclaves around Falluja and elsewhere, and that the Iraqi people have the right to vote freely in the elections that are planned for early next year. The Secretary of State for Defence has answered all the points about the future of Scottish regiments consistently.

Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab): Last week, I met management, trade union representatives and workers at Heysham nuclear power station who were concerned about the future of the nuclear industry and their jobs. May we have a debate about our future energy needs and the role that nuclear energy will play in that?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will have a chance to raise this matter at Department of Trade and Industry
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1597
 
questions next week if she catches Mr. Speaker's eye. I understand the importance of those jobs to her constituents, on whose behalf she is rightly very active. As for future energy policy, I am strongly committed to renewable energy. I think that a green future is the future for this country, although nuclear power will obviously continue to play a part in delivering our energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reminded the House that it was two years since the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended and one year since the elections to the Assembly, which has not met. He could have added that it was six weeks since the Leeds castle talks, at which the Government announced that there had been a breakthrough, although nobody has seen any sign of it since then. Might it be appropriate to have a debate on the Floor of the House in Government time to give the Government and the House the chance to explore the serious issues that are arising from the continuing suspension? I was surprised to discover that the last Government debate on the Floor of the House on the general political situation in Northern Ireland took place 10 years ago today. Although this Government are responsible for only seven of those years, is it not time that we had a debate here on the very important issues that are arising because of the collapse of the political system in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hain: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. We all acknowledge that he has been a vigorous activist in regard to getting the political process in Northern Ireland back on the road again. As he knows, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been engaged for a number of months in detailed discussions about relaunching the whole process. As to whether there is an opportunity for a debate, we shall have to see. Let us make sure that the process is successful; that is the priority.

John Cryer (Hornchurch) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about this morning's newspaper reports that, only six months ago, an individual used taxpayers' money to stand successfully for election but has now decided to have a little tantrum and resign his United Kingdom Independence party Whip? Would it be appropriate for us to have a debate about the perils of those individuals who decide to stand for office effectively under false pretences? Should we consider demanding that he pay that taxpayers' money back? If he failed or refused to do so, we should seize his villa in Spain, as it must be surplus to requirements.

---