---

Mr. Hain: I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks about religious clothing in schools.

I can promise the hon. Gentleman a debate in Westminster Hall on foreign affairs before the end of March. He has repeatedly raised that point, which we are anxious to do something about, and I am happy to agree to a debate.

On the tax arrangements relating to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, I will certainly make sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are responsible for the legislation are aware of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

There will be an opportunity to raise a number of European Union issues. The Lisbon reform programme is about making the EU much more competitive, particularly in relation to the competitive threat from east Asia. It is an important British agenda and it must be accelerated. The Government are trying to accelerate it, and our presidency will provide an opportunity to do so. There will be a chance to debate how the growth and stability pact should be progressed, reformed and implemented.

The hon. Gentleman described the report on the UK e-university as "damning", and the Secretary of State will want to take close account of that matter. He also mentioned Government incompetence, but there is no greater example of Government incompetence than the poll tax, for which the Conservatives were responsible. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to raise the issue of Government incompetence.

On computer contracts, the reliability of IT contracts to Government Departments—and, indeed, to the private sector—is a problem right across the world, and we are having some success in addressing that issue.

David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): Earlier today, one of my hon. Friends mentioned that it is the 20th anniversary of the miners' decision to return to work. I was unfortunate enough not to return to work, because I was sacked along with just fewer than 1,000 people. On Monday, the BBC showed a good and fair programme about the miners in the face of great opposition from Conservative Members. At the end of that programme, the Iron Maiden—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear"]—the then Prime Minister, referred to "the enemy within",
 
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1103
 
when she was talking about miners and their families. Do you, Minister, think that she should apologise to those miners and their families?

Mr. Hain: I certainly do—I represent a mining community. [Interruption.] Well, I am not astonished by the growl of approval from the Conservative Members about bringing back Thatcher.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Yes.

Mr. Hain: I am not surprised, given the dreadful leadership provided by the leader of the Conservative party. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton), who is a former miner, in acknowledging the suffering that miners' families experienced and their appalling treatment by the Thatcher Government. When Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, lots of ordinary families suffered from her oppressive treatment, which would make an excellent subject for debate. The BBC programme is an excellent example of pointing out the truth, not least about the behaviour of the then Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can return to the business for next week.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): On the business for next week, Mr. Speaker, can the Leader of the House confirm that he recognises that his primary responsibility is to this House, not to the Government, for the orderly arrangement of parliamentary business? Will he make a statement on the primacy of the House? As he knows, the Prime Minister and other Ministers constantly object to cross-party plans for reform of the composition of the House of Lords on the grounds that it could undermine the predominance of the House of Commons. Yet the Home Secretary has apparently decreed that the Lords should be the place where substantive amendments to his legislation on house arrest are discussed, having failed to provide a real opportunity for this House to debate them. He has apparently decided that compromise can be achieved only at the other end of the building rather than here. That is where the discussions will take place, and that is where the substantive debate will take place.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that he stands by his statements on many occasions that the predominant role in the business of Parliament lies here? Will he confirm that elected MPs should take decisions rather than, in his own phrase, unelected peers? How can he defend the contempt that other members of the Government seem to show for the House when compromise and consideration seem to be the rule only for the other place? He announced a few moments ago that we will have very few hours in this place to discuss amendments to an important Bill while considerable time is being devoted to it in the other place.

Ministers frequently say that the legitimacy of the Lords is, in some way, not complete. Will the Leader of the House indicate the Government's attitude towards cross-party proposals for the improvement of the legitimacy of the other place? Has he had an opportunity to study the Bill that I presented to this House with the support of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the right hon. and learned
 
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1104
 
Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)? Will he indicate that the House will have an opportunity to debate those matters, and will he tell us the Government's attitude on them?

Last Thursday, the Leader of the House gave me an undertaking that the Chancellor would look urgently at the question of tax credits, which are causing much misery to our constituents. He may have seen that The Daily Mirror has taken up the issue and has referred to the fiasco that has left tens of thousands of families in financial crisis. When will I get an answer from the Chancellor, which the Leader of the House promised me last week? Much more importantly, when will all those who have been affected by the appalling fiasco get an answer?

Mr. Hain: Obviously, the Chancellor is as anxious to make sure that those issues are addressed as the hon. Gentleman is in, quite rightly, raising them with me. The overall point is that we are delivering more support for low-income families and those on benefit, especially hard-pressed low-income pensioners, than ever before. That is the important point. Some things have gone wrong in the system, and they are being addressed, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will applaud the Government for giving billions of pounds to the very poorest pensioners and those on low incomes, and for encouraging people into work by supporting hard-working families and making work pay.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, about the primacy of the House of Commons, I am happy to repeat my often-stated view that the House is the prime body and the sovereign body, above the House of Lords in Parliament. Of course it is.

On timing, the hon. Gentleman made a perfectly fair point, but he will recall that consultations were held only the previous Friday with the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Conservative party. It was not possible to hold them earlier than that, although it would have been desirable to do so. It was, therefore, in response in part to requests from the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats to see whether consensus could be found that the Home Secretary reflected and came back to the House at the earliest opportunity. He circulated the letter, and I know that there was some concern about who saw what and at what time, but there was an honest intention to circulate it to the House. The Home Secretary, indeed, apologised if Members had taken offence, because he did not intend that.

It was not possible suddenly to table amendments and it was much better to take the mood of the House and listen to the debate, as we continue to do. Then, we could place amendments in the Lords, which, by the way, will come back to us. In whatever way the Bill is treated in the Lords, it will come back to us, giving a further opportunity to scrutinise it, hold us to account and perhaps consider other amendments, possibly even Government amendments, depending on the situation in the Lords.

Mr. Forth: Oh! A concession.
 
3 Mar 2005 : Column 1105
 

Mr. Hain: I am just stating the obvious. I am not saying that that will happen, but simply stating that the Government are dealing with a very difficult situation—

Mr. Heald: Of their own making.

Mr. Hain: No, not of their own making. It is almost a situation of the House's making, because the House passed legislation in the aftermath of the September 11 attack, but one aspect of it has been deemed unlawful in its application by the Law Lords. We are having to deal with that.

By the way, there is no question but that the Bill has been given adequate scrutiny. It will have been given at least 17 hours of scrutiny in the Commons. I know that it raises important issues about which hon. Members feel strongly, but I have looked into this matter, so I know that for an 11-clause Bill to receive 17 hours of scrutiny in the House of Commons is quite in line with other emergency legislation. Indeed, in some respects it will have more time—

---