| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
- That further resources, not exceeding £2,058,352,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,636,556,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence.
ESTIMATES, 2002-03 (NAVY) VOTE A
- That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 46,025 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, a number not exceeding 17,340 for service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces, and a number not exceeding 250 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Naval Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
ESTIMATES, 2002-03 (ARMY) VOTE A
- That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 128,195 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 84,000 for service in the Reserve Land Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
ESTIMATES, 2002-03 (AIR) VOTE A
- That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 57,415 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 23,050 for service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 550 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2000-01
- That a sum, not exceeding £3,097,059.33, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 635.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001-02
- That further resources, not exceeding £4,531,170,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a further sum, not exceeding £3,727,881,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the cost of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 636.
- That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and Mr. Paul Boateng do prepare and bring it in.
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope not to delay the House too long. My point of order is further to that which was raised last night by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), to whom I have given notice of my intention of raising this matter tonight. I do not question the ruling given by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I believe was wholly appropriate to the narrow point that the hon. Lady raised, but the matter has wider implications concerning the jurisdiction of the courts and the rights and privileges of hon. Members.
The hon. Lady referred to an injunction that prevented local newspapers from identifying an individual and a hospital, but she went on to identify that hospital, which was formerly situated in my constituency and is now located in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and is the main district general hospital serving his constituency and mine, and Eltham. As far as I can ascertain, the hon. Lady made no attempt to give prior notice to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) or I of her intention to raise the issue. I believe that that was a discourtesy.
A newspaper carried a story in all its 12 editions, rather than only the local and Greenwich and Woolwich editions, because as it said,
- "publishing the story in just one edition and identifying the area would have contravened the judge's court order".
I recognise the importance of the right of MPs to freedom of speech and the importance of parliamentary privilege, and I recognise and support the intentions of
article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but that should be seen in the light of rules surrounding sub judice matters and the courts. Although this issue is not technically sub judice because the courts have already made a decision, there is an important principle that courts should not seek to prevent Members from expressing their views, but that neither should Members subvert decisions of the courts.I would not expect a substantive answer tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am aware that there is currently a case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but I should be grateful if you could give the matter your careful consideration and advise hon. Members accordingly on the use or abuse of privilege in this context.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) for giving me notice that he would be raising that point of order. I can in fact give him a fairly definitive answer in terms that may not be wholly unexpected. As the hon. Gentleman recognises, hon. Members enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and I can therefore advise him that nothing disorderly has occurred. However, it is always hoped that hon. Members will be mindful of the consequences of remarks that they make about such cases.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Town and Country Planning
- That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Electricity
- That the draft Renewables Obligation Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
PETITIONS
New Park Campsite
7.7 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): The villagers of Brockenhurst in the New Forest, East constituency are overwhelmingly against the principle of the creation of a campsite at New Park, Brockenhurst. Under the auspices of the parish council, no fewer than 1,719 out of 2,652 people on the electoral roll have signed this petition. Ninety-five per cent. of those contacted signed it and
65 per cent. of the electorate as a whole have therefore expressed support for the petition of residents of Brockenhurst, which states:
- That the Forestry Commission proposes to close the existing campsite at Hollands Wood and to open a new campsite at New Park, that the proposed new campsite will be detrimental to the surrounding environment, and that they oppose the principle of the Forestry Commission's proposals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Forestry Commission not to proceed with its proposal to open a campsite at New Park.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Secondary School, Sittingbourne
7.8 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey): The petition of the residents of Sittingbourne declares:
- That there is an urgent need to build a new secondary school on the north side of Sittingbourne to meet the needs of young people in north Sittingbourne, Milton Regis, Kemsley and the villages of Iwade and Lower Halstow. Such a development is necessary to guarantee parental choice, to develop community awareness and to avoid transport chaos in the centre of Sittingbourne.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Department for Education and Skills and Kent county council to consider as a matter of urgency the planning and siting of a new secondary school in north Sittingbourne.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Dronfield School
7.9 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): The petition that I am presenting seeks to put in place arrangements to turn the split-site school at Dronfield, where my own children went to school, into a single-site school, because the Gosforth site building is dropping to bits and was recently closed due to wind and rain. The petition of residents of Dronfield and district, which I support as the rational alternative, declares:
- That the teachers, staff and governors of the Dronfield school help provide an excellent education for the young people of Dronfield; that the performance of the Dronfield school will improve now it has recently become a technology college; that standards at the Dronfield school will be further assisted if the existing two-site facility can be brought together on a single site; that spending £1.5 million on maintaining the Gosforth site over the next five years, as part of a split-site school, does not represent good value for money; and that a failure to move to a single site would be an enormous lost opportunity.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to approve the proposals submitted by Derbyshire county council for a scheme to consolidate the Dronfield school on a single site.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |