| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): So in that case why did Lord Condon, Lord Irvine of Lairg and our old friends Bob Sheldon, Joel Barnett and John Morris vote against the Bill? Why should they do such a thing? My right hon. Friend should be a bit more careful. In whole sections of the country, the Bill is not seen as Commons versus Lords, but as particular people in this Government against the Law Lords. Commons against Law Lords is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Mr. Hain: May I respectfully say to my hon. Friend that I just do not think that that is the situation. As a result of the arguments that were advanced in the House of Lords, by my hon. Friend and other Labour Members, and by Members on the other side of the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a series of concessions to try to find common ground. He sought to bring judicial supervision and authorisation up front, not only on the derogating orders but on the non-derogating orders; to ensure that Parliament has to renew the legislation every year, otherwise it lapses; that an independent review of how the Bill operates is carried out; and that the judges and the courts are put in pole position. That is why we have listened to the points that have been made. The entirely separate issue that is at stake is whether the House of Lords insists on the sunset clause, which would mean that the whole legislation would disappear in a matter of months. That is the issue—the Conservatives are busy nodding their heads—and it is a different issue from the points that Labour Members and others of independent mind made in the House of Lords and in this Chamber. The Conservatives are inviting Parliament to send a signal to any likely suicide terrorist that this House is wobbly on terrorism and suicide attacks. We cannot possibly do that.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 855, on the possibility of creating political prisoners?
[That this House believes that if the Government persists in seeking legislation that gives to a Minister of the Crown the right to impose detention or control orders on UK residents without the decision being taken in a court on the basis of a trial of evidence then the UK will stand accused of creating political prisoners seriously damaging the reputation of this country's legal system as a beacon to the world.]
Is not that an issue that should be taken seriously?
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry responded to a question from me about reports of plans to privatise the Export Credits Guarantee Department by saying:
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1692
"On the issue of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, I have not seen the reports that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but let me say that there are no plans to privatise that organisation".—[Official Report, 3 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1088.]
In the Evening Standard on Tuesday, a DTI spokesman said that
"we are considering whether we can work with private sector partners to deliver some of the Export Control Organisation's services."
Is not that a clear indication that the Secretary of State either does not know or is not prepared to tell the House what her policy is? Nor did she make any comment on the proposal to extend open licences for defence equipment from two years to 10 years. May we have a debate in which the Secretary of State can explain to us exactly what she is doing on arms control and how that is consistent with the Government's claim that they want to tighten it up?
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will certainly study what the hon. Gentleman has said very carefully. However, there is a difference between a Government agency working with the private sector, as many do, and privatisation. They are very different matters.
Early-day motion 855 refers to the part 4 powers that were ruled to be illegal by the Law Lords. That is why we have had to introduce emergency legislation that will provide judicial control, a regular report back to the House of Commons, an opportunity for review, independent scrutiny and the need for renewal after one year. All the necessary safeguards will be put in place. The most serious provisions on home detention will require a vote of the House of Commons and the House of Lords before they can be proceeded with. All of the legitimate concerns about civil liberties have been addressed, but the paramount necessity is to ensure the security and safety of our citizens, and eliminate or at least closely control the risk of suicide and other terrorist attacks. That is what we are trying to do, and I regret that an unholy coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats seeks to impede the progress of that important legislation, which would be in the interests of all of us, as the police and the security services have said.
Jane Griffiths (Reading, East) (Lab): We all welcome the publication of the long-awaited Bill on Crossrail. Hon. Members will recall the unseemly demise of a previous incarnation of that Bill in 1996. We have not heard today of any allocation of parliamentary time to make progress on the hybrid Bill. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that time will be found and that the Bill will not recede so far into the future that the opportunity is lost?
Mr. Hain: This is an important issue, but my hon. Friend will understand that it is a hybrid Bill and, therefore, it is not possible to rush it through in one Session. It takes several Sessions to get it through. Having made a start with the Bill, we intend to make progress and to secure the Bill, because it is so important.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con):
I support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1693
Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in requesting an urgent debate on the new guidelines set by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, because it might be able to clear up one issue that is exercising my constituents. Why is Brentwood borough council, alone among councils throughout the country, being asked to provide an official Traveller and Gypsy site when it has but a handful of unauthorised caravans? Adjoining constituencies, represented by Labour Members, have hundreds of unauthorised sites and a history of migration by Travellers and Gypsies. Without an explanation, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will not be able to demonstrate that it has acted objectively or, for that matter, sanely.
Mr. Hain: I just do not agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is minded to direct Brentwood to prepare a plan to allocate land to meet demand for Gypsy sites because the council is about to adopt a local plan that makes no such provision, despite the evidence of demand. The issue is whether, in the absence of the necessary controls because of the failures of the last Conservative Government, sites should be allowed to develop in a haphazard and uncontrolled way, or whether proper controls and plans should be put in place. Otherwise, Travellers will move around, creating difficulty and nuisance for local residents. The issue is whether we have proper sites that are properly regulated, controlled and located in order to protect local residents' interests. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister wants to do in Brentwood.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North) (Lab): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 298, which has been signed by more than 130 Members and calls for the abolition of the means test for the disabled facilities grant?
[That this House is extremely concerned about the unfair nature of the Disabled Facilities Grant means test, particularly for families with disabled children; notes that many families who need to make vital adaptations to their home are often forced into massive debt by having to pay for the full cost of adaptations themselves or are unable to carry out the work, leaving their home inaccessible for their child; believes this situation is unacceptable; welcomes the ODPM's current review of the Disabled Families Grant and urges the Government to follow the recent decision to abolish the means test in Northern Ireland; and further believes that such a move would greatly improve the quality of life for many disabled children and their families.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the unfair nature of that means test, many hard-working families with disabled children who want to make vital adaptations to their homes are unable to do so without getting into massive debt? Others have to live in homes unsuited to their children's needs. As we have published a paper on improving the life chances of disabled people, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate the issue? Perhaps we may look forward to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor making provisions to address that issue in his Budget.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the course of action that
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1694
he has taken in seeking to settle the problem of sites for Travellers and Gypsies? Is he further aware that we deplore—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |