| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Feb 2003 : Column 1047—continued
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): May we have a debate on capacity of Britain's jails in relation to the Transport Act 2000? Congestion charges start on Monday and we
are all supposed to be able to text our fees to the congestion charging agency. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I and 800,000 others are receiving error messages? The server has apparently collapsed. If I send my money via a text, I may well be liable to an £80 fine. I will not pay that £80 fine. I will not be present for future debates because I will probably be carted off to jail with another 800,000 people. When may we have a debate on this issue—before I am carted off to prison?
Mr. Cook: In a previous intervention, the hon. Gentleman invited me to visit Lichfield cathedral. It would give me even greater pleasure to visit him in prison.
On the question of electronic communications, I was entertained to see in this morning's press a report of an internal e-mail at the Conservative party, saying that Monday's introduction of the congestion charges would provide
- "a golden opportunity to get a few quotes in the papers."
- "Much research . . . has confirmed the Government's view that price signals are a highly efficient way of influencing transport demand."
Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon): Given the huge concerns in the country about possible military conflict in Iraq, could some of the business that the Leader of the House has announced for the week after recess be replaced by a debate on that possible conflict? If that is not possible, may we at least have an extended Question Time on the issue, so that some of the scenarios for which military conflict may be ruled in or ruled out would become clearer to the public?
Mr. Cook: We are fully aware of the immense interest in the House in Iraq and in the international events surrounding it. That is why, following business questions, we will hear a further statement on Iraq from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The business for the week after recess is important. For instance, at last week's business questions, there was demand for a debate on Wales and that is partly why we have included such a debate in that week's business. However, should matters change, and should there be a more pressing requirement for us to address Iraq that week, business is always flexible and that could be done. I do not expect that need to arise, but should it arise we would consider the need for the House to debate such matters.
Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle): Will the Leader of the House explain the legal and historic basis for the royal
prerogative so that my constituents may understand the powers of the Government to commit troops to war without a substantive vote in this House?
Mr. Cook: In British history, troops have repeatedly been committed without a substantive vote in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friends will allow me, I was about to say that, on this occasion, we have already had one substantive vote and it is our intention to have a substantive motion, with a further vote, should the situation require it.
I would say to hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches that, for the past two months, they have pursued the issue of process as the sole issue of concern in relation to Iraq. At some point, they will have to come clean on what they will do if there is a second resolution. They can perpetually ask us what we will do if there is no second resolution, but we are entitled to clarity from them on what they will do if there is.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): The Government have announced their intention to publish within the next two to three weeks the long-awaited energy White Paper. In view of the increasing importance of diversity and security of energy supply—especially in the context of the deteriorating international situation—will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made on the White Paper and that there is an early opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Cook: I understand the considerable interest of the House in energy matters, which have been raised frequently during business questions. I believe that the White Paper will be of fundamental importance to our commitment to international environmental targets. These are matters of great importance and significance and the Government will ensure that they are treated accordingly.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): Last week the Deputy Prime Minister announced his intention to allow plans for hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built in the south-east of England. My constituents, not surprisingly, are extremely alarmed. They would like their opinions to be heard in this place. Although I appreciate that this matter cannot take precedence over the security and international matters that have been discussed today, will the Leader of the House please make time—Government time—for a debate on this matter in the near future? A possible title would be "The Concreting of Essex".
Mr. Cook: I am sure that all the hon. Lady's constituents who are seeking a house will have noted that she is opposed to having any more houses in her constituency or locality.
We had a full statement on this issue, followed by lengthy exchanges involving the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Cook: I agree that one can never have too much of statements from the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure that he will wish to return in future to keep the House further informed.
It is important that we address what I would have thought all hon. Members from the south-east would acknowledge to be an acute housing shortage that has resulted in sharp rises in house prices. There is a risk that those house prices in the south-east will be beyond the pocket of essential public service workers.
As to concreting over anywhere, I am proud that this Government—ahead of time, thanks to the efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister and others—have hit their target of ensuring that 60 per cent. of new housing is on brownfield sites. We will ensure that we keep a balance.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): Given that the House adjourned before 5.45 pm on Tuesday, that it could have adjourned at least an hour earlier yesterday and that this afternoon's debate is on the Adjournment of the House, why does my right hon. Friend find it so difficult to find time for an urgent debate to make true the Prime Minister's statement that decisions whether—not when—to commit British troops are a matter for our Government, our House of Commons and our people?
Mr. Cook: Today's debate is not on the Adjournment, although that is the technical basis on which it will proceed. It will be a debate about education for 14 to 19-year-olds, and I do not think that my hon. Friend should trivialise its great importance to the future of the economy or to the future of our young people. I am very pleased that the Government have introduced new initiatives on the education of 14 to 19-year-olds. I would have thought that she would welcome them and would wish the House to have the opportunity to discuss them fully.
On Iraq, I have made it plain that we have debated the subject before, and we will debate it again. I shall certainly wish to make sure that the House has every opportunity to reach a decision.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Does the Leader of the House recall the very large anti-nuclear protest marches of the early 1980s, some of which he may even have supported before he modernised himself? Does he recall that the largest of them, in October 1983, was shown by scientific aerial survey to be only a quarter of the strength of the 400,000 turnout claimed? On the return of the House, may we have a ministerial statement—if necessary a written one—as to what measures will have been adopted to ensure that Saturday's protest is accurately counted so that false claims cannot be made in the way that they are traditionally always claimed for such protest marches?
Mr. Cook: I really think that the time has come to draw the curtain on how many people attended the demonstration in 1983.
As to the forthcoming demonstration on Saturday, it is, of course, part of the tradition of such demonstrations that there should be a variance in the estimates coming from the police and those taking part. I do no not wish to interfere with that tradition.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover): Tomorrow marks the 15th anniversary of the start of the P&O seafarers' strike, which started in 1988 and went on until 1999.
The seafarers were striking in support of safer conditions on cross-channel ferries, and the result was that 2,000 people were sacked simply for taking legal, official industrial action. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the plight of the sacked Dover seafarers, who lost their livelihoods, received no compensation and who continue to be blackballed to this day?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |