---

Mr. Hain: I must say that I am very attracted by that proposition about Robert Kilroy-Silk. He is obviously too big for UKIP. Perhaps his possible exit from that party will be a source of encouragement to the Conservative party, which is worried stiff about the threat that UKIP poses to Conservative constituencies. As we know, the reason that the Tories have shifted to such an extreme position on the right on Europe is that they are trying to get the UKIP votes back.
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1598
 

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet) (Con): In reply to my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who raised the issue of the Government's promise to introduce a draft civil service Bill during this Session of Parliament, I thought I heard the Leader of the House say that a document would be published shortly. Given that the Public Administration Committee published its own draft civil service Bill some months ago, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the published document will at least include a draft civil service Bill, and that when he says "shortly", he means within the remaining three weeks of this Session of Parliament?

Mr. Hain: On the question of the draft Bill, the answer is yes. On the question of timing, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait just a little longer.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): The public service trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, is calling a day's strike and a day of action by its members on 5 November in protest against the massive job cuts proposed in the civil service. May we have a debate on this matter, especially as the PCS is supported by claimants' bodies such as the unemployed workers centres, and by a number of Members of the House? Representatives of those bodies have met at least 100 Members of the House this week in order to put their view forward.

Mr. Hain: I have a great deal of respect for the PCS. Indeed, a number of my own officials are members of it—quite rightly so; I am a strong trade unionist myself—and it has a point of view to put forward. In the end, however, we are trying to devolve Government resources and taxpayers' money to front-line services. There will be more jobs involved in that, and more opportunities on top of the 500,000 jobs that have been created in the public sector under this Government. So we are not in the position of previous Governments, both Labour and Conservative, of cutting public sector jobs. We have actually increased them by 500,000, including jobs in the civil service, to tackle such key problems as getting people off benefit and into work, and the problem of illegal asylum seeking.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): May I ask the Leader of the House a question about one of the unfortunate consequences of today's business? One of the most unreasonable criticisms—although it is a perfectly fair one—that we face is that we are often not in the Chamber. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we often have to be in other places carrying out other aspects of parliamentary business. It is particularly regrettable that today, while there is an important cross-cutting question session in Westminster Hall—in which I have been fortunate enough to draw a question—in which Department for Education and Skills Ministers will participate, there will be an important Department for Education and Skills Bill debate, in which I should also have liked to participate, in the main Chamber at the same time. Can we review the practice of having cross-cutting questions at the same time as the main Chamber is sitting?
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1599
 

Mr. Hain: The Modernisation Committee is looking at how the sitting arrangements work, not just in regard to the hours, about which there are strong feelings on both sides, but in regard to how the business of the House interacts with Westminster Hall and with Committee sittings. It is a complicated matter. In a sense, the Government are between a rock and a hard place. We have provided more opportunities for individual Members to raise important issues, through the debates in Westminster Hall, than have ever existed before. I shall certainly look into the hon. Gentleman's point about cross-cutting questions, which provide a special form of opportunity in Westminster Hall, but it is terribly difficult to organise the timetable so that there are no clashes anywhere, given the pressure for more opportunity for debate. However, this Government have provided more such opportunities to Members of the House of Commons than any previous Government.

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): May I support the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for a free vote next Tuesday during the debate on new clause 12 of the Children Bill, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and which would outlaw the physical punishment of children and give equal protection to children and adults? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is that equal protection for children would be the best way forward, and that it would be entirely workable? The association believes that clause 56 of the Bill, which the Government support, is unsafe and unworkable. That is also the view of the Association of Directors of Social Services, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the Health Visitors Association. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that an enormous amount of evidence is building up to show that clause 56 is not the way forward? Will he, even at this late stage, consider allowing a free vote on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield?

Mr. Hain: I am not in a position to add to what I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on this matter, save to acknowledge the championing by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) of children's rights over many years. She will have an opportunity to make her point if she catches the Chair's eye in next week's debate. That would provide a good opportunity for her to put her views on record with greater strength, as she will have more time to do so, and to persuade others of her point of view.

Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con): Over 48 hours last weekend, a rural five-acre field in North Curry, near Taunton, was turned into an illegal Gypsy camp, complete with roads, fences and septic tanks. The right hon. Gentleman will know that returning such sites to their natural state often involves too long a legal process. When will legislation be introduced to speed up the planning enforcement process?
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1600
 

Mr. Hain: The Deputy Prime Minister will obviously pay close attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I know that these problems bedevil constituencies right across the country, and he has made his point very effectively.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): The Leader of the House will recall that it is a convention, as I understand it, that changes to Standing Orders of the House, or on constitutional matters, should whenever possible be introduced by the Government on the basis of broad consensus with all Opposition parties. It seems that those conventions have been widely flouted in recent years. Can we therefore assume that they do not now apply? If so, surely that is of great detriment to the House.

Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but if he was referring to programming—I am not sure whether he was doing so specifically—the Modernisation Committee took a slightly different position from the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee had a powerful case to make, which was argued out vigorously on the Floor of the House, there was a free vote on the matter, and the outcome is there to see.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a request already made for the early introduction of a Bill to deal with corporate manslaughter? That is a very long-standing commitment from the Government. There has been a long-term campaign by organisations such as the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am a member, to make sure that corporate organisations and their leading members are properly held to account when disasters occur. Even more importantly, because of such legislation they would take more seriously their responsibility to both the public and employees to stop such disasters happening in the first place.

Mr. Hain: I agree fully with my hon. Friend, and the Government support the position that he has advocated. As a GMB member, not a T and G member, I know the powerful arguments that have been put forward on behalf of that union, the TUC and other unions, for the Government to redress that important injustice and to make progress as we intend to do.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): May we have a statement or debate on the funding of secondary education? Such a statement or debate would give me the opportunity to bring before the House the views of a highly respected head teacher, Mr. Robert Underwood, of Hardley school and sixth form college in my constituency, who said in a recent newsletter:

"A few years ago, under Grant Maintained Status, our school was financially secure . . . In recent years, we have seen those advantages evaporate . . . The extra money which the Government is giving to schools is only given to specialist schools, city schools, failing schools, mismanaged schools or reorganising schools, so we don't get any."

What have the Government to say to those people who carry on doing a good job in mainstream comprehensive schools and find their financial resources squeezed more and more tightly?
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1601
 

---