| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): Has the Leader of the House yet had time to find out what on earth has happened to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? I raised the matter before Easter and I had expected to hear from him. The Bill was considered in 12 short Committee sittings under a Government timetable motion meaning that most of it was not discussed at all—that practice is becoming more frequent. That happened more than three months ago, and four months will have passed before the House may consider the Bill's Report stage. Has the Bill been mislaid, will it be withdrawn, or is it on course?
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point before. The Bill is important, but I cannot give him more comfort than I did last time. We make every effort to ensure that important Bills are passed as quickly as possible. That is not possible in all cases, but we have been assisted by several elements of the modernisation of the House such as pre-legislative scrutiny and carry-over. However, there is limited time even with such assistance. I hear the hon. Gentleman's comments but regret that I cannot give him a more definite answer.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): My right hon. Friend will recognise the significance of the British construction industry not only to the Government's programme but to export potential. Will he grant a
debate on that on the Floor of the House? If that is not possible, will he consider allowing questions about the British construction industry to be asked in one of the cross-cutting question sessions that have been so successfully held in Westminster Hall?
Dr. Reid: I entirely agree. The construction industry is regarded as rather old fashioned in some quarters, but it is anything but that. It is at the forefront of British industrial practice, and I hope that all the work done by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is widely recognised by hon. Members. The United Kingdom construction industry is experiencing the strongest growth of such an industry in Europe and, in 2001, it secured £4.7 billion-worth of new work in other countries. It does not operate only at home, but in the international sphere. I regret that some Opposition Members have attempted to decry the Government's efforts to assist the construction industry, especially with regard to Iraq. I was pleased that prominent members of the industry, such as AMEC, wrote to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to ask them to desist from so doing because the Government have been extremely effective at bringing what the British construction industry could offer to the attention of the relevant United States authorities, as well as making other international efforts. I hope that we can all pull together in support of our industry rather than dividing and trying to undermine efforts that have been made.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a few hon. Members standing. I wish to call them all but I need them to co-operate by asking brief questions of the Leader of the House.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Following the important question asked by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the murderous bomb attack in Tel Aviv, can the Leader of the House persuade the Home Secretary to make a statement on the possibility of reintroducing exit controls on passport holders at British airports and ports to ensure that the United Kingdom does not export terrorism to friendly countries overseas?
Dr. Reid: I am sure that that matter is under discussion in the Foreign Office in the light of that regrettable event. All the implications of such an event are being considered as we speak, and have been for some time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been heard.
Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1100?
[That this House notes the statement by the honourable Member for Kingston and Surbiton on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that 'War is not an issue for the local elections. Our advice to candidates has been not to campaign on it because, with British citizens fighting, it's in poor taste'; further notes that in Manchester, Birmingham, Leicester and elsewhere, Liberal Democrat local election candidates have been seeking to con Muslim electors into voting for them by campaigning on an anti-Iraq war platform; and observes that such opportunistic
hypocrisy by Liberal Democrat local government candidates, not to mention poor taste, is entirely characteristic of every aspect of Liberal Democrat campaigning.]I am concerned that despite assurances from those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that the war in Iraq would play no part in the local election campaigns, local Liberal Democrat council candidates are campaigning today on an anti-war platform while our brave service men and women serve in Iraq. Is it possible to find time to debate that subject so that the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen can answer for their local election candidates?
Dr. Reid: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is perhaps too parti pris to comment that we are used to the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in the House and another thing on the doorstep. For the Liberal Democrats, it is often worse than that, however. To get elected in last year's local elections, Liberal Democrat candidates who were husband and wife managed both to oppose and to support hotly disputed issues of local parking restrictions during the same campaign. I suppose that shows us how family friendly their policies can be. Indeed, they are so expanded that they can incorporate contradictory points of view. I am sure that, like the House, the public recognise that pretending to be all things to all people is not credible. Those who promise everything to everyone rarely deliver anything to anyone.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I back the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for an early debate on reform of the common agricultural policy. The Leader of the House may not be aware, but Brandons turkey factory closed with immediate effect this week, leading to a loss of 300 jobs at Dalton near Thirsk in the Vale of York. In all probability, 60 turkey farms will go out of business and 50 suppliers and contractors will lose access to that market, all of which is on top of an ongoing farm crisis across North Yorkshire. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is well briefed on the subject. Would it be possible to debate the matter before decisions are taken in Brussels on reform of the CAP?
Dr. Reid: I referred to that matter earlier. The hon. Lady has taken a deep interest in such matters for many years. I agree with many of her comments and we are often on the same side of an argument, which I hope does not further antagonise the Conservative Front
Bench towards her. I am sure that we will explore all opportunities to discuss that important issue, if not here then in other forums in the House.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Zimbabwean cricketers are about to arrive in this country. Many of us remember that during the worst excesses of the apartheid regime, the sports boycott was one of the most effective boycotts. Does he agree that this rather grubby tour gives all the wrong signals? We want a truly democratic regime in Zimbabwe that will deal with human rights abuses. With the best will in the world, it gives out the wrong signal to have their cricketers here.
Dr. Reid: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. What is happening in Zimbabwe is a deep disappointment to everyone who wanted a flourishing, prosperous and democratic future for its people after a long time during which they were prevented from controlling their destiny. It is one of the terrible tragic ironies of history that, after a brief interlude in historical terms, they find themselves once again denied real democratic control over their country. Perhaps it is even more tragic and ironic this time because someone who comes from the biggest ethnic group in Zimbabwe—the Shona tribe—is preventing the people from reaching their full democratic destiny.
Andrew Mackinlay : May I first tell the Leader of the House that neither he nor the Prime Minister can or should hide behind a sub judice rule that does not exist or apply in the case of tapping MPs' telephones? No one has been charged so the sub judice rule does not apply. Secondly, in respect of the Prime Minister's final comments yesterday, the Wilson rules have been breached or varied by him and a statement should be made, as the rules provided for an exception from the normal rule under which the Prime Minister does not normally comment on security matters. Thirdly, my parliamentary questions have been blocked under the blocking rule. That simply will not do. It cannot be sustained. The sooner that clarity is provided and a statement made from the Dispatch Box, the better for the Government and the House.
Dr. Reid: On the final point, I am not aware of the details of my hon. Friend's questions. No doubt he will bring those to my attention outside the Chamber. On the allegations that appeared in a newspaper deriving from a book on telephone tapping, I have nothing to add. I note that my hon. Friend makes the distinction between arrests and charges. I also note, as he will do, that events in Northern Ireland change with amazing rapidity, almost by the minute as we now know, both on that subject and in respect of other events that take place there. What I say at one moment can be contradicted at another because circumstances change. Although he draws the distinction between investigation, arrest, charge and so on, I stand by the comments on that subject that I made about half an hour ago.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |