---

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend made—or was seeking to make—an important point. On his first question, which was about the disabled facilities grant, the Government have announced an interdepartmental review of the grant programme, which will include analysis of the impact of the means test on different groups of applicants, including the families of disabled children. I hope that he is encouraged to hear that his point will be taken into close account by those undertaking the review.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): May we have a debate on the use of exaggerated language? Can the Leader of the House explain his referring a few minutes ago to "a Conservative-controlled House of Lords," when the numbers in the Lords are as follows: Conservative 209, Labour 207, Cross Benchers 187, Liberal Democrats 68 and others 36? How can he describe that as a Conservative-controlled House of Lords?

Hon. Members: The Cross Benchers are all Tories!

Mr. Hain: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, because he provides me with the opportunity to remind him of the remarkable coincidence whereby, when Labour Governments are elected, the number of defeats of Government legislation in the House of Lords increases exponentially, as it has repeatedly done in the past few years. That happens because the Conservatives, the hereditaries—and, indeed, some Cross Benchers who are conservatives with a small "C"—can mobilise a majority to defeat the will of the elected House of Commons. There is a huge Labour majority in the House of Commons, and there is, in effect, a conservative—with both a small and a big "C"—majority in the House of Lords. In the end, democracy should prevail. In the present case, Conservatives in Parliament should put the safety and security of our constituents before opportunism and playing politics.

Laura Moffatt (Crawley) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Portcullis House yesterday and today two private health care companies—BUPA and CS Healthcare—have been plying their trade? Will he look into that and tell us whether their desperate attempt to ply their strange trade in the House of Commons is being made because of falling NHS waiting lists?

Mr. Hain: I shall certainly look into the matter for my hon. Friend, because I understand her point, although I am not responsible for the event.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): May I repeat the plea for a proper debate on Traveller policy? The guidelines issued by the Deputy Prime Minister on the requirement for councils to provide sites are not the whole answer to the problem.
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1695
 
Throughout the country there are areas such as mine, where although there is a plethora of sites, that does not prevent Travellers from buying other pieces of land, moving on to that land and developing it without any planning controls. There is paralysis between the planning system and the courts, with the result that the Travellers just stay there and no one stops them. Whatever the legal provision of other sites, Travellers are not prevented from developing their own unauthorised sites wherever they can get hold of a piece of land. That is the issue that must be addressed, and the Government have not yet addressed it.

Mr. Hain: I respectfully suggest that that is why the hon. Gentleman should support the Deputy Prime Minister's effort to put in place some sort of order and controls, instead of the rather haphazard situation in which Gypsy and Traveller sites are established all over the place. That is what my right hon. Friend is trying to do and, in the light of what he has just said, the hon. Gentleman should give my right hon. Friend his enthusiastic backing.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): Following his earlier comments, will the Leader of the House confirm that he is prepared for the House to sit late this evening—late into the night, if necessary—to get the Prevention of Terrorism Bill passed? I voted against the Government last week because of my concern about the lack of judicial involvement in non-derogated orders, but I now accept that the Home Secretary has gone a long way to meet my concern and that of other hon. Friends. Is not the reality that either we will pass the Bill following the changes proposed by the Home Secretary and accepted by this elected House, or we will end the sitting with no effective anti-terrorism legislation in this country, and face all the risks to national security that that will create?

Mr. Hain: That is spot-on. We will sit as late and for as long as it takes to get the legislation through. We will not accept the Conservatives here and in the House of Lords trying to dictate to the Government. Were they in power, they would be taking similar action to deal with the consequences of the Law Lords' ruling last December that the existing powers were not lawful. We have to put something in their place. My hon. Friend says that his legitimate concerns have been met by the concessions that we have made to put judges and the judicial process in pole position. All we have now is an exercise based around a sunset clause—a specious reason to oppose the principles behind the Bill. That is what the Conservatives are doing.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): During last week's debate on renewal of the BBC charter, I raised the issue of substantially higher rates of licence fee evasion in certain parts of Northern Ireland. I have tabled early-day motion 810 on the matter:

[That this House notes that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has indicated in several replies to Parliamentary Questions from the honourable Member
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1696
 
for East Londonderry that the information regarding a regional geographic breakdown of those people not in possession of a valid television licence fee is not available; further notes that the limited information which is available indicates that in certain undefined parts of the United Kingdom there is a considerably higher rate of evasion; and calls for a more open strategy to be deployed in order that people across the United Kingdom will know where the highest evasion rates are and will be able to see that the Department is acting accordingly to ensure licence fee payments are made and the law upheld.]

When can we expect a debate on transparency regarding the identification of areas in which evasion is rife, so that we can establish that the Department has not attempted a cover-up and ensure that the law is upheld?

Mr. Hain: We have only just had a debate on the whole subject, and we had the statement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the point, as he is entitled to do, he can table a question to my right hon. Friend.

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome the publication last week of the Equality Bill, which will set up the commission for equality and human rights? Is he aware of how much it has been welcomed by various organisations, including the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission, and in Wales? When will Second Reading of that important Bill take place?

Mr. Hain: I hope that we can have a Second Reading debate on the Bill which, as my hon. Friend says, is an important measure dealing not only with discrimination against people with disabilities and women, and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or race, but with discrimination on grounds of age or religion. The latter will support the Muslim community, which has felt besieged in recent times. [Interruption.] I hope that the measure will be passed. If Labour is re-elected, the Bill will certainly get Royal Assent as soon as possible—[Interruption]— although I can tell from the unseemly heckling from Conservative Members that if we are not re-elected, they will not see the legislation through.

Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon) (Con): May we have an urgent debate on the practices of the Ministry of Defence in awarding surface ship refit work? The feeling is growing in the west country that dockyards are winning such work based not on a competitive tender, or the best one, but on heavyweight political muscle being applied by some of the right hon. Gentleman's Labour colleagues, especially north of the border. He will understand that that is absolutely unfair and requires urgent investigation and debate.

Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's constituency point, which he is advancing quite properly, but he knows that a rigorous assessment
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1697
 
process and tendering process are applied to surface ship refit work and other such activity, and I am sure that he is not suggesting that there is any impropriety.

---