| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tipping: Some regional development agencies have made real progress. The issue of assemblies will, I think, appear in the next Labour manifesto--and I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman does not have much chance of contributing to that debate.
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): I draw the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House to early-day motion 782:
[That this House is alarmed to discover that up to 100,000 hectares of this year's maize crop in Europe may be subject to GM contamination; is concerned that this is on a larger scale than the recently admitted GM contamination of oilseed rape; believes it is grossly dishonest of the European seed industry and EU officials to respond by demanding a reversal of current European zero contamination rules rather than tackling the central issue of genetic pollution; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to follow Sweden and France in destroying GM-contaminated seeds and crops, to arrange compensation for farmers, to hold seed suppliers fully liable for contamination under the polluter pays principle, and to halt seed imports which lack comprehensive verification as being GM-free.]
Has my hon. Friend also seen the letter from the European Seed Association that was referred to by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Question Time. Will it be possible for the House to have either a statement or a debate that clarifies the United Kingdom position on proposals to change the current European position, which is that there should be zero GM contamination? The European Seed Association suggests that 1 per cent. should be allowed. May I also ask him to convey to the Minister the degree of alarm that that causes Members, and society? The reassurance that there is just a little bit of genetic contamination is no more comforting than the idea of being a little bit pregnant.
Mr. Tipping: I have seen early-day motion 782. As my hon, Friend rightly says, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has seen it, too. Our policies on safety and science are drawn. We have looked at the claims of the European Seed Association. If any evidence is forthcoming, we will act on it and report to the House.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): The Minister is well known as a consensual sort of chap.
Today, he again took refuge in that idea in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the debate on reform of the Lords. The Minister is looking for consensus on the matter before it can proceed. Can he help the House, and, indeed, my right hon. Friend, by defining consensus in that context?
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman is--I am sure that he will not mind me saying--not a consensual politician. Indeed, I sometimes think that it is difficult for his own Front-Bench team to agree with anything that he says, but the Wakeham report defines a way forward. It is the best show in town. It is the vehicle to go forward. I know that he does not agree. I understand that he takes the view that if there is an elected upper House, it will have the same rights as the House of Commons. I do not agree. I do not believe that that is the mood of the House.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): Did my hon. Friend have the opportunity on Monday to read The Guardian and the article in it headlined, "Firework safety law was wrecked by pro-hunt plot"? If so, did he note in particular the comments of John Woodhead, who has long service in the firework industry? He said:
- If this bill had become law it would certainly help ministers now to deal with any regulation changes that might be necessary after the disastrous fireworks warehouse explosion in Holland.
Mr. Tipping: I have seen the report in The Guardian. I am also well aware of the tremendous interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the matter over a number of years, and of the support that she has received right across the spectrum, from those who are concerned with safety issues to those who manufacture and work with fireworks. It seems that the measure did fall, and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that the measure did not go forward as a punishment for letting Back Benchers play around with hunting. That seems to me an example of the legitimate but silly games that give the House a very bad name.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Can the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that the absence of a debate on London in the next two weeks' business does not mean that the Government believe that the establishment of a Greater London Authority precludes our debating London issues, particularly those that are the responsibility not of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) or of the London Assembly, but of Ministers? Can he reassure us that we are not precluded from debating issues such as the dome--on which £89 million of public money has recently been spent--and the priority that the Government accord to it, and Harefield hospital, in west London, which is due to close, thanks to the Government's parsimony?
Mr. Tipping: Of course London remains a seriously important issue for the House, just as transport, social security policy and the relief of poverty are issues for the
House. The dome, too, is a matter for the House. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Government took powers to change the lottery legislation so that money could be spent not only on a dome in Greenwich, but throughout the country. Many projects in London and right across the country are benefiting from that. He also asked about lottery money being used for health. He will remember that this Government--unlike the previous Government--legislated to make it possible to put money into health.
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch): My hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 742, which states:
[That this House considers that sufficient parliamentary time has been allocated to the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill; and calls upon the promoters of the Bill to withdraw this Bill in its current form and to resubmit proposals for a genuine democratic reform of the City of London Corporation.]
My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Bill is the first extension of the business vote since 1832, and is a straightforward attack on democratic accountability. Although the vote on the Bill is unwhipped, as it is a private Bill, I have noticed that, in the past, our helpful friends from the Government Whips Office are always on hand to guide hon. Friends into the pro-Bill Lobby. Have we not wasted enough time on that disgraceful Bill, and is it not about time that the promoters withdrew it or the Government decided not to allocate any more time to it?
Mr. Tipping: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a real interest in that matter, and has spoken at great length about it. However, withdrawal of the Bill is a matter for its promoters. I should also like to reinforce a point that the Leader of the House made not long ago: the Bill is unwhipped business; it is a matter of private business. I should also say that the Whips have not caused me to stray any which way on that particular Bill.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, once said that the dome would be absolutely dramatic and fantastic. When he said that, none of us realised that he was referring to the grotesque squandering of £538 million of lottery money--which, as every one of us knows, could have been spent on better lottery projects in our own constituencies. As the issue has developed such a head of steam, both within and outside the House, how can the Minister come here and say that he cannot give us a debate on this national scandal in the next week's business?
Mr. Tipping: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to the dome--
Mr. Tipping: --but 80 per cent. of those who go to it come out saying that they have enjoyed the experience--which is dramatic and fantastic. The fact is that 6 million people will visit the dome--twice the number who will visit Alton Towers in the same period. Alton Towers is dramatic and fantastic; so is the dome.
Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham): It is more than a year since Back Benchers had the opportunity to discuss the
activities of Ofsted. A few weeks ago, four of Her Majesty's inspectors entered one of the largest comprehensive schools in the country--it is in my constituency--and, after an inspection spanning only eight school periods, placed the school on special measures. My discussions with the Department for Education and Employment have revealed that only the House can hold Ofsted to account. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider setting aside some time for us to discuss Ofsted's activities, which, as I said, have not been discussed for more than a year?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |