| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Feb 2003 : Column 411—continued
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South): My right hon. Friend will recall that a few weeks ago I raised with him the consequences of the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He will also recall that some days ago the High Court decided that section 55 infringed the human rights of asylum seekers. My understanding is that the Home Office is likely to appeal against that decision, and that the appeal will probably be heard the week after next. In view of that timetable, will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on section 55 specifically so that the House may give its view on its operation and advise the Home Secretary whether to pursue the appeal procedure?
Mr. Cook: I am not able to offer a debate within the next two weeks in view of the business that I have already announced. I can see difficulties ahead if I changed that business, given that it has already been announced and covers areas of considerable interest to many right hon. and hon. Members. However, it would also be difficult for the House to have a debate on a matter that is very much before the courts, in this case the Appeal Court. In the event that the Appeal Court upholds the existing ruling, consultation will have to take place on the Government's intentions, but in the
meantime the matter is before the courts. As soon as judgment has been reached, I am sure that the Home Secretary will wish to make the Government's position clear to the House.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): Uncharacteristically, the Leader of the House did not answer all the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I ask the Leader of the House again just which Minister or official cleared the dodgy dossier. As this now looks like a cover-up, can he ensure that a statement is made next week by the Minister concerned?
Mr. Cook: I understand that the paper was not issued as a Command Paper and, therefore, the process of ministerial accountability for White Papers would not necessarily apply. The right hon. Gentleman heard me respond to the shadow Leader of the House and my central point remains true—if the Opposition wish to support the Government strategy and to be identified with the firm position being taken by the Prime Minister, they must resist the opportunity to try to score political points at every twist and turn.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): May I bring the Leader of the House back to the question of the changed hours? They are causing many problems, and not only for Members of Parliament. Many staff are anxious about the future of their employment and I understand that it is difficult to find Members to serve on Committees. As a northern MP, I now have only Monday mornings free for school parties. I have encouraged schools to visit to watch debates and to look round. It is part of our democracy to visit the House, but the present arrangements are causing difficulties because they mean that Northern MPs have to give up visits in their constituencies on Monday mornings. May we have an urgent debate on the hours and how they are working, or not working? After all, we should not be trying to accommodate newspaper editors. This House is more important than they are.
Mr. Cook: I am not in favour of accommodating newspaper editors in any way, but I am in favour of accommodating our constituents, who have every right to be informed about what happens in this place. As a result of the vote yesterday taking place at 7 o'clock, they had a much fuller account of what happened here than they would have had if we had divided at 10 o'clock. Although I can well understand why that argument might not necessarily appeal to all my colleagues on the Front Bench, I had hoped that it would appeal to my hon. Friend.
On the question of access for schools, I am fully seized of the importance of reaching out and making contact with schools. For that very reason, the Modernisation Committee is considering how we may improve access to the House and ensure that we strengthen our education service and reach out to schools around Britain. However, it is a matter of fact that the overwhelming preponderance of schools that visit this place have a relative geographic proximity to it, and
there are other ways in which we can provide a parliamentary link to schools at some distance, which would be of great value to all regions of Britain.
Mr. Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate, in Government time, on the Government's plans for a massive increase in house building across the south of England? Given that the Milton Keynes south Midlands study envisages a further 59,000 houses in the Aylesbury vale area between now and 2031 and that there is an estimated associated cost for infrastructure of £8.5 billion—there seems little prospect that we shall meet that cost—does the Leader of the House understand that my constituents are concerned about air pollution, traffic congestion, pressure on school places and access to medical facilities, and that they need to have their concerns urgently addressed and allayed?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct that any house building must be accompanied by an appropriate level of public service and physical infrastructure to ensure that the quality of life marches in step with the increase in housing volume. I fully understand the importance of that. It is also important that we minimise the pressure on greenfield sites, which is why I am proud that the Government have achieved their target of 60 per cent. development of residential accommodation on brownfield sites. Having said that, we face acute demand for additional housing in the south-east and that is one reason why we face a substantial rise in house prices in the area, which I am sure will be of concern to many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are looking for a new home for the first time. We cannot hope to address that concern if we do not provide substantial numbers of additional homes for those who want to live in the south-east.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the report of the Commission for Health Improvement on the Government's private finance initiative flagship, the Cumberland infirmary, which is a document as critical and coruscating as I have ever seen? Has he noted that it reports raw sewage bubbling out of scrub sinks, doors hanging off, and more leaks than Cardiff city centre on St. David's day? Will he find time in the next 14 days for a Government statement on the future of the PFI policy, which is seriously and fundamentally flawed? It damages patients' and public confidence in the NHS. Finally, will he recall—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is sufficient. There is too much embellishment of questions.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct that the picture painted in the report is very serious and I understand that the chief executive of the health trust has departed its service, partly as a result of the report. It focused on the way in which the PFI was managed. Before my hon. Friend erects a general case of principle based on this matter, I note that the same body has also produced reports on the PFI projects at Durham and Dartford, which were very positive in their conclusions and stated that those projects worked well. That should be set against the report on the Cumberland project.
Dr. John Pugh (Southport): During the recess, a resident from my area was shot dead by terrorists in
Saudi Arabia. Two years ago, another constituent was maimed in a similar outrage. British subjects are currently languishing in Saudi jails, having been tortured and deprived of sleep. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement on the Floor of the House about the security of British citizens in Saudi Arabia and the threat of terrorism there?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that our advice about travel to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is constantly updated and kept under review. I am familiar with the background to a number of cases involving British citizens detained in Saudi Arabia because, sadly, they go back for more than two years. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government—through local embassies, and through Ministers—repeatedly express concern about UK citizens involved in such cases, and that we seek to achieve a proper system to ensure that those people can be brought to trial or released.
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 667 on the demise of wide-based share option schemes in the UK as a result of the new accounting regulations to be agreed shortly?
[That this House notes the great benefits to employees and employers of broad-based employee shares schemes which have been promoted by this and previous Governments and from which millions of UK employees have benefited to the extent of over £35 billion; registers its grave concerns over the impact on such schemes of the International Accounting Standards Board and the Accounting Standards Board proposals on accounting for share-based payments; notes the calls by the TUC, ProShare and others that broad-based schemes should be excluded from this new accounting charge; calls on the Government to add its voice to the calls for such an exclusion; and further calls upon the International Accounting Standards Board and the Accounting Standards Board to draft wording which, while abiding by the general principle of the proposed standard, would exclude broad-based schemes from an accounting charge.]
That change would adversely affect millions of constituents, and is also worrying the TUC, the Confederation of British Industry and National Association of Pension Funds. Does he agree that an early debate is needed so that the House can express its own concerns before the accounting standards come into force later in March?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |