| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I apologise for missing my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, but may I say something about size, composition and attendance? I must confess that I missed the sittings, but I think that part of the problem is that those who become members of the Committee are not entirely sure of its powers and what it is likely to do. As a member myself, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss that informally.
Mr. Bell: As he said, my hon. Friend is a member of the Committee, and he has taken a strong interest in our proceedings. He anticipates a point that I intended to make. We have a busy House, a busy Committee structure and a busy timetable, and it is not always easy for Members to attend sittings of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The change in the sitting hours of the House has had a further impact on attendance. My hon. Friend's point about how we inform new Committee members is well made, and I will certainly return to it. I have already discussed the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury about the Church of England and Parliament.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who was on the Committee, made some pertinent points. He spoke of the role of the parish priest, and the vocation. It is indeed a vocation, and parish priests are therefore in a rather different category from those in other professions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned when something has happened that must be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Elizabeth I and the middle way. I had visions of the middle way and the third way. Four hundred years later, here we are again, inventing a new way of looking at politics. Incidentally, 30 years ago General de Gaulle also had a third way in French politics—but in the context of the established and the disestablished Church, as I have said, disengagement strikes me as a way forward for both.
I think I have covered the question of the Committee's size. The questions of synodical debate and a debate on synodical government, however, are extremely important to both the Church and the House. The hon. Gentleman made a significant point about our proceedings today, namely that there was no Committee stage and indeed no Second Reading for Church legislation. There is no Department to take over such business. The House of Commons represents the final safeguard of the rights of our constituents who are also parishioners. Today's proceedings are therefore very important, and I am glad that there is a sense of unanimity here.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of connecting parishes with the internet. It is certainly a wonderful source of information, even for our parishes.
I think I have covered all the points made by Members. I thank them all again for their constructive participation. I thank members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the General Synod, and the representatives of Church House who brief me so well. I commend the Measure.
- That the Clergy Discipline Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
Municipal Waste Recycling Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
2.27 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move,
- That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.
Our first problem is the requirement for a strategy to be prepared within six months to achieve a 50 per cent. municipal waste recycling rate by 2010. We are not sure that that would fit with the rather more comprehensive waste strategy 2000, which involved the whole waste stream rather than just municipal waste and addressed the entire hierarchy rather than just recycling. We think it important to focus on the action needed from central Government and local authorities to meet our published targets and to make progress with the 2000 strategy rather than publishing a further strategy so soon after the production of the others.
Speaking just for England, we considered the issues of targets in our response to the strategy unit's report "Waste not want not". The unit made a number of suggestions for new strategy targets, although they were not as ambitious as the target of 50 per cent. by 2010 proposed in the Bill. We concluded that it would not be fair to change the statutory recycling and composting targets that the Government had set for 2005–06 at this stage. We recognise, however, that national recycling rates higher than the current targets are both possible and clearly desirable. We have said that in 2004 we will review the national recycling targets in the light of progress made by local authorities in meeting their 2003–04 targets. We are not currently convinced, however, that the achievement of a 50 per cent. rate by 2010 is practicable. That rate is far beyond the current target of 30 per cent. by 2010 as set in "Waste Strategy 2000", and the target of 35 per cent. by 2010 as recommended by the strategy unit.
On other parts of the Bill, we intend that the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill should incorporate the requirement for municipal waste management strategies in two-tier areas. These strategies will not be required for "excellent" authorities or for those that can show that they are on track to meet their targets. We intend to table an amendment to this effect on Report. The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill already incorporates the power of direction for a waste disposal authority to require a waste collection authority to deliver waste separated, where that is necessary to meet its requirements under the landfill allowance scheme or recycling targets.
On the motion and the matter of cost, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently doing some financial modelling to forecast the cost of providing such services and of meeting increasing levels of recycling within the UK, although this is not ready yet. The calculation is not straightforward; the modelling is very complex, involving a number of different scenarios. We need to be very clear about the assumptions and fears that we feed into the model; however, we are certainly working on this.
So I think that we can agree that sustainable waste management is a vital policy, and that it will be useful to discuss this Bill further in Committee. I commend the motion to the House.
Adjournment (Whitsun)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 22nd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd June.—[Joan Ryan.]
2.31 pm
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting): I wish to speak on Cyprus. I am the chairperson of the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's all-party group on Cyprus, which is made up of Members from all of the major parties in this House. Since the brutal military invasion of the Republic of Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974, we in this House have, over the years, had many debates on, asked many questions about, and tabled many early-day motions on Cyprus. Our group has always made it very clear that we are just as concerned with the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots as we are with those of Greek Cypriots.
In the years since 1974, there have been many attempts to find an honourable solution to the division of the island of Cyprus. It became clear during that time that the lack of progress was due to the attitude of Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, and his friends and supporters in Turkey. Since 1974, he has done nothing to enable the island of Cyprus—a country that is a member of the Commonwealth, and for which the United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers—to work together with Greek and Turkish Cypriots to develop their country. Some years ago, he declared the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus. To this day, only one country in the world recognises it: Turkey. The United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Kingdom all refuse to recognise it. So, sadly, we have made no progress on a settlement.
Many Members of this House have fully supported the application of Cyprus for membership of the European Union, and we were delighted when it became clear that it will become a member next year. As those discussions on membership were taking place, the then President of the Republic of Cyprus, President Clerides, asked Mr. Denktash on several occasions to join him to discuss Cyprus's future membership of the EU. He always—always—refused, saying that only if President Clerides recognised his independent state of northern Cyprus would he take part in such discussions.
When it became clear that Cyprus would join the European Union, the Secretary-General of the United Nations sought a settlement to the division, so that next year, when the Republic of Cyprus becomes an EU member state, the whole of Cyprus would join at the same time. I welcome and support the attempts of the Secretary-General to find a solution, but, again, we got nowhere, and again for the same reason: Mr. Denktash.
The voice of the people of northern Cyprus has now changed greatly, however. Turkish Cypriots went on to the streets in their thousands, calling for an end to the division of the island and speaking of the wish of the people of northern Cyprus, whatever Mr. Denktash says, to be part of the Cyprus that joins the European Union next year. The people of northern Cyprus, after years of silence, have clearly asked for an end to the isolation that, sadly, they experience from the world.
The British Government are major players in the affairs of Cyprus. We controlled it for many years, and two of the most important military bases in the British military establishment are still on the island. I have already mentioned the role that Turkey has played and continues to play in northern Cyprus. We also know that Turkey wants nothing more than to become a member of the European Union. This Government support and encourage that wish, but what I and other Members want to know is: just what do my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary say to the Turkish Government about Cyprus and an end to the division of the island? No one can say that Turkey has no influence in northern Cyprus; thousands of Turkish troops are there, and it helps the Denktash regime financially. So we say clearly to Turkey: use your influence in northern Cyprus and make it clear to Mr. Denktash that he must now enter into meaningful discussions with the UN Secretary-General to end this long-running tragedy of the division of Cyprus.
The people of northern Cyprus have clearly said what they want to happen. For the first time since 1974, we have witnessed invasion: people crossing the divide between northern and southern Cyprus to visit the areas in which they used to live and their former homes, and to meet their former friends. So the attitude and wish of Cyprus is now very clear. The people have spoken, be they Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. They say, "We want to live together, work together and prosper together."
So where does the United Kingdom stand in terms of this very clear wish? Do we support these people, and if so what are we doing to ensure that such developments continue and lead to a united Cyprus, thereby ending the division of the island and the suffering of its people, among whom, sadly, none have suffered more in recent years than the Turkish Cypriot community? If that is our policy, what are we doing to pursue it? That is the question to which many Members of this House want an answer, and it is why I have spoken today.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |