| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 99(2) (Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland).
That the matter of the 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th and 39th reports from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration.--[Mr. Coe.]
Question agreed to.
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, in reply to a point of order from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), you advised him to seek to pursue the question of hon. Members visiting his constituency without his knowledge in another way, rather than by raising it as a point of order.
I took your advice, following a visit last Friday to my constituency by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who were presenting industry awards to a firm in my constituency. Neither hon. Member informed me that he was coming. Their visit was accompanied by much publicity.
I took the matter up with the Ministry of Defence, which informed me that the Minister was not on official business but on a Tory party central office visit. Is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to parade himself around the country, at the behest of central office, giving the impression that he is acting in an official capacity, without informing the Member concerned? That is a double disgrace.
Madam Speaker:
My only concern is that a Member or Minister should go to another hon. Member's constituency without the courtesy of giving notice. It is my opinion that the hon. Gentleman should have been given notice of the Member or Minister going to his constituency. That is my responsibility, and I try to uphold it.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I recall that it is also an important courtesy of the House that, if one hon. Member intends to mention another hon. Member, he should give notice. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) did not give me notice, and I suspect that he did not give notice to my hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames).
Madam Speaker:
The point of order did not relate to the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Speaker:
Order. It is time that hon. Members took their buckets and spades and went off on holiday, if this is all that they can do.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that you signed the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday's business. Item 8 was a Government motion relating to European Community water policy, to which I and two of my hon. Friends moved an amendment that, unusually, was selected--no doubt because it related to the debate Upstairs.
As you will know, under Standing Order No. 102, no debate is allowed on such amendments, even when they are selected. If the amendment had been accepted, it would have had important implications for the European Community and its procedures. Can you tell me whether
representations to change that Standing Order should be made through you to the Procedure Committee, by means of an early-day motion or by letters to the Procedure Committee? There is widespread concern about the way in which we handle these matters.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
Now that is a point of order.
Madam Speaker:
It certainly is a point of order, because the hon. Member for Newham, South knows well our proceedings in the House, follows them carefully and makes proper points of order. I think he is aware--if not, I inform him and the House of this most interesting and important point--that the Procedure Committee is at present examining all these matters. The report will be produced as soon as possible.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I ask your guidance on a matter of order relating to the subject of the Opposition debate this afternoon? I presume that the subject was originally precipitated by what was thought to be the leak of a Government document. As it now transpires that the leaked document was produced by a Labour prospective candidate, have you had any representations about changing the subject of the debate this afternoon?
Madam Speaker:
No, I have not had any such representations. The debate is on the motion as outlined on the Order Paper.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before we go away with our buckets and spades, is there any way in which we can obtain a statement from the Ministry of Defence about the replacement maritime patrol aircraft? Up to 200 jobs at British Aerospace at Prestwick depend on the decision, and the fear is that it is being delayed to enable the Chancellor to give some pre-election tax cut bribe. That is undermining the position of jobs at Prestwick. Can you force a statement before we go away tomorrow?
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I cannot force the Government to make a statement, but he should also be aware that there will be an opportunity in a debate tomorrow for him to raise the matter and obtain a response. I am sure that, if he looks at tomorrow's Order Paper, he will find a method of doing that.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For many years, it was the practice in the House not to name civil servants who could not defend themselves on the Floor of the House. While I understand that a determined attempt by the
Madam Speaker:
I have always held firmly to the view that those who do not have a platform on which to defend themselves in the House should not be named by hon. Members in that way. I have tried to uphold that principle, and I hope that it will continue.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you have overall responsibility for the papers of the House, could I ask you to be kind enough to speak to those who vet the wording of motions, and ask them to ensure that sloppy phrases such as "knee-jerk opposition" do not occur in official motions again?
Madam Speaker:
The point has been taken, Sir Patrick.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. While I am sure that all of us agree with the general principle that one should not refer to civil servants who do not have a right to defend themselves in the House, surely the action of the Opposition Front-Bench team in bringing the matter before the House has brought it into the public domain?
Madam Speaker:
I have made my views known on that.
Madam Speaker:
Order. This is like zero hour in India. I do not believe that hon. Members have genuine points of order, but think of them at the last moment.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield):
On a genuine point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us tabled questions to the Chancellor for Thursday in good faith, on the understanding that there had been an announcement and there would be business on Thursday. We are suddenly given notice that we are to be deprived of that opportunity to question the Chancellor or to ask him to answer the charges. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has just defamed a civil servant, and we now have no opportunity to set the record right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, it is a gross discourtesy to the House and to the civil servant.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman, and perhaps many more like him, will have to wait until October. I hope that he can keep his cool until then.
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley):
I beg to move,
Co-operation between local authorities and local industry is essential. I am in a fortunate position, as a waste minimisation project has been established, which is being led by the Keighley Business Forum. The forum has been described as
As the forum points out, individual companies are unlikely to have the management skills, systems, resources or technical knowledge to achieve the full benefits in terms of environmental improvements and energy efficiency savings of waste minimisation. At least a further 40 companies are expected to participate in its forthcoming expanded scheme, demonstrating the keen interest that exists in this field. It has already been found that the cross-fertilisation of ideas and approaches is one of the greatest benefits to be obtained.
The waste saving project managed by the forum has gained the support of the Yorkshire and Humberside Government office, the BOC Foundation, the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water, Bradford council, and Bradford and district training and enterprise council. It is also linked to Keighley's successful bid for funding from the single regeneration budget, which has the potential to create many new jobs in the town, as well as greatly improving the infrastructure and environment.
In the first phase of the project, a series of nine half-day seminars will take place between September and December this year on a range of different techniques of waste minimisation, including analysing the potential for saving within the production process, better planned maintenance, avoiding unnecessary use of gas and electricity, and taking advantage of opportunities in terms of the recycling and disposal of hard waste, water and effluents.
From that point, with the aid of specialised consultants, companies will be able to carry out waste minimisation audits, and start to formulate their own action plans. For example, Yorkshire Water will be supporting a pilot programme on water minimisation, and will offer a free water audit to companies participating in the scheme.
The initial cost of taking the first steps along the path of eliminating waste need not be great. Companies can participate in the Keighley business forum's project for as little as £60, and there is the possibility of substantial paybacks in due course. However, success demands the continuing commitment of senior management. The forum has stated:
Waste reduction is not something that only concerns companies--it concerns all of us as individuals. The Government, in their 1990 White Paper on the environment, set out a household waste target that involves the recycling or composting of a quarter of all household waste by 2000. Among the key factors in achieving that target is joint action by householders and by local authorities. The latter must ensure that bottle banks are available, and must arrange their waste collection and disposal facilities in such a way that material that can be recycled is separated. Many householders are already used to putting recyclable waste into green bins, the contents of which are collected separately.
The Women's Environmental Network, which is supporting me in the drafting of the Bill, has suggested a number of practical ways in which waste saving can be promoted by local authorities: for example, by publicising cheap repair schemes for household items such as vacuum cleaners and washing machines, which may otherwise be disposed of if they go wrong; by persuading local restaurants to cut down on the unnecessary waste of food; by discouraging businesses from producing unnecessary publications and paper; and by finding ways of reducing product packaging.
I stress that waste saving makes good sense: it improves the image of companies, it can increase their income, and it gives individuals a stake in an essential drive towards a more sustainable environment. The Bill sends signals that are right for our time, and I hope that it will be supported.
3.40 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable certain local authorities to investigate what measures are needed to reduce, prevent or avoid waste in their area; to take such steps as they consider appropriate in order to achieve that end; and for related purposes.
Reducing waste can make good economic as well as environmental sense, not just for the country, but for industries and individual companies. Nowhere has that imperative been set out more clearly than by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales in their foreword to the Government's White Paper, "Making Waste Work", a strategy for sustainable waste management, published in December last year. They presented the central message:
"more sustainable waste practices need not entail great expense or restrictive legislation. Indeed they can bring substantial savings to business. We can achieve a long-term sustainable balance between the environmental and economic impacts of different waste management options and feel the benefits now."
The theme of the Bill is in tune with that approach, as it certainly does not involve great expense or restrictive legislation. On the contrary, it contains enabling powers that are intended to encourage waste collection authorities to adopt a proactive stance in their dealings with both the domestic and commercial sectors in their areas.
"a dynamic self-help group of 360 companies whose key aims are to regenerate the local business economy and improve performance."
In March this year, it succeeded with a skills challenge bid for its initial project involving 23 companies, both large and small. The bid won a special merit award as one of the six best schemes in the country.
"Waste management is not a destination but a journey."
The Government have set out clear objectives: to reduce the amount of waste that society produces, and to make the best possible use of it. In this way, we can minimise the risks of immediate and future environment pollution and harm to human health. Targets can often help, and we have set clear and realistic ones: to reduce the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent. by 2005, and to recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste by the same date. The worth of efforts to achieve these targets can be better appreciated if we understand that, in England and in Wales, we produce enough waste to fill Lake Windermere every nine months.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |