| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for acknowledging that the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to deal with it. I hope she will consider applying for a debate in the usual way, so that the matter can be further explored.
Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP): Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that we should not rush into new legislation on airguns following the tragic and appalling death of toddler Andrew Morton. This morning, I discovered that a further attack took place last night on a fire crew in Tayside and that the use of airguns cannot be ruled out. Regardless of what the Prime Minister said, will the Leader of the House assure me that there will be an early look at the legislation concerning airguns? Does he agree that the most stringent penalties must be given to anybody who attacks our emergency services?
Mr. Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his latter point. We must closely monitor the unauthorised and malevolent use of airguns, and I am sure that his remarks will be taken into account.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): Can we have a debate on the history of human rights in the UK, in order to counter the frequently repeated myth that the measures that the Government are introducing in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill are unique? We should remind the House of the measures that the Conservative Government introduced in the 1970s in conjunction with Stormont, which resulted in 3,500 British citizens being detained without the intervention of a judge, and on the orders of a politician. That sets in clear relief the fact that the Government's proposals that we are considering today are a moderate and proportionate response to a real threat.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his point illustrates the rank hypocrisy of Conservative Members.
Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con): In recent months, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been very busy in my constituency. It forced the unelected regional assembly to ask whether Taunton should have 13,000 houses, and it conducted what it called a "consultation", which involved no more than forcing local councils to take Gypsy and Traveller camps. If the Leader of the House is good enough to grant us a debate on Traveller policy, can we also discuss the sham of Government decentralisation policy?
Mr. Hain:
The policy is not a sham; it is a commitment to empower local communities wherever possible, and the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced detailed proposals to that effect. On extra housing, the hon.
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1701
Gentleman knows that demand for housing has increased in Taunton, as well as elsewhere in Britain. Under this Labour Government, communities are doing very well with low mortgages, greater prosperity and more jobs, and the Deputy Prime Minister is meeting the twin imperatives of environmental protection and people's desire for more affordable housing.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): May we have an urgent statement from a Constitutional Affairs Minister, not about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but about this statement, which was made by a deputy High Court judge two days ago:
"The postal voting system is open to widespread corruption, because the authorities are powerless to tackle fraud"?
The Times has discovered that the distinguished local government chief executive and expert returning officer, Max Caller, warned the Government in advance that
Bearing in mind the fact that in an exchange with me on 10 June the Leader of the House dismissed those very dangers, which have now been confirmed, will he now tell the House of Commons that the Government's policy on postal voting has done a grave disservice to the process of democracy in this country?
Mr. Hain: We take the Electoral Commission report very seriously, and Ministers are considering the matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted to remind the House that postal voting is a democratic right for those with disabilities, those who are not at home on voting day, senior citizens who find it difficult to get to the polling station and others who want to vote at ease from the privacy of their own homes, rather than having to go down to the polling station.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, so is it now Conservative policy to deny postal voters the right to apply for postal votes and to vote? [Interruption.] When fraud occurs, which appears to have happened in Birmingham, it must be dealt with and vigorously clamped down on. If the hon. Gentleman were being fair minded, he would concede that those are isolated cases compared with the millions of extra people who had the opportunity to vote last year. Millions of people took advantage of the postal vote with no impropriety or accusations of fraud, and although fraud cases are unacceptable, they are isolated examples against the general trend.
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con):
I, too, call for an urgent debate on planning policy in relation to Travellers, because my constituency already contains five unauthorised sites. Britain is, rightly, a country tolerant of people who live different lifestyles, but good community relations depend on the law applying equally to all without fear or favour, and currently the discrimination is against the settled community. I recognise that some authorised sites should be provided, but before the Leader of the House blames the wicked old Tories again for this problem, will
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1702
he recognise that the supply of authorised sites will never match demand, given that many Travellers come to this country from overseas?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made some reasonable points, which is why the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced stop notices and is seeking to deal with the problem. He and other hon. Members from both sides of the House should work with the Deputy Prime Minister to try to resolve that nationwide problem. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give the Deputy Prime Minister some credit for acting decisively and seeking to impose control and order where there has been none.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): In contradistinction to the Leader of the House's rant about democratic opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in the other place—opposition that includes a majority of Labour peers—the Leader of the House has made a great deal of the safeguard provided by a vote of both Houses to the renewal orders in the Bill. Will he confirm that the safeguard will entail a statutory instrument, which cannot be amended, can be debated for only an hour and a half, and will be taken in Committee, where relatively few hon. Members can participate? Is that really a safeguard? A better safeguard would be to introduce an entirely new Bill with enough time for proper parliamentary scrutiny and with the support of all parts of this country, including the judiciary.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made his point reasonably, so he will not get a rant in return. The problem is that the existing legislation, which the Law Lords have deemed unlawful, expires on Monday. What should we put in its place? The security services and the police have told us that they believe that the legislation that has been ruled unlawful acted as a powerful deterrent. They have told the Government, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and me, in my capacity as Leader of the House of Commons, that that legislation effectively put up a notice to would-be suicide terrorists that Britain is not a soft touch. We cannot continue to use that legislation so we must replace it, and that is what we are seeking to do. All Conservatives, wherever they are in Parliament, should respect the safety and security of our citizens and support the Government, as we would have done in opposition, and they have shown rank hypocrisy in failing to do so.
Mr. Bercow: May I reiterate the call made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) for the Second Reading of the Equality Bill to take place? The Leader of the House can readily find support for that Bill on both sides of the House, because it will establish a commission on equality and human rights, outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods and services and give public authorities a duty to promote equality of opportunity for all our citizens. Will he accept that after all the extensive consultation on that important matter, there is no good reason to delay any longer? The argument for holding the Second Reading either next week or the week after is overwhelming.
Mr. Hain:
I have announced the business for next week and the week after, which is dominated by the
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1703
Budget, but we want to proceed with the Equality Bill as quickly as we can. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and I am sure that he is equally grateful that we have found time for a debate on Africa, which he and the shadow Leader of the House have asked me about.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |