| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Common Land
15. Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire): What plans she has to bring forward legislative proposals relating to common land; and if she will make a statement. [126291]
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. In July 2002, we published the common land policy statement, which set out a comprehensive package of proposals relating to the registration and protection of common land and village greens. A working group has developed proposals for agricultural management of common land, and we will consult on those before the end of September.
Mr. Williams : Common land is not only an important agricultural resource, but provides opportunities for wildlife conservation and recreation. Given that a report produced by stakeholders in the spring of this year was unanimous in its support for further legislation, and given that the mid-term review will give more opportunities for common land to be used in innovative ways, is it not time for the Government to bring this forward as a matter of priority?
Alun Michael: I have just indicated the way in which we will bring it forward. We recently had the report of
the working group that we established, and we intend to consult on that by the end of September. I have not read the detail of the report yet because we have only just received it. The hon. Gentleman, with his constituency interest, will know that although the problems of common land and the biodiversity reasons for treating it with great care are understood, it is an enormously complex area of the law. I should be happy to discuss the issues with him once we have published the document, as I know of his constituency interest and the complexities in his part of the world.BSE
17. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): What assessment she has made of the threat of BSE infection in the national herd; and if she will make a statement. [126293]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The domestic BSE epidemic has fallen from a peak of over 37,000 cases in 1992 to around 1,000 cases last year. We must not be complacent, but that is significant progress towards eliminating the disease. Equally encouraging, red meat consumption is at its highest since 1985.
Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and it is good to know that the incidence of BSE has fallen. However, the Minister says that he wishes to be complacent, so does he accept that one of the real risks of re-infection is the importation of illegal meat into the United Kingdom? When I asked his colleague a similar question some months ago, it was revealed that only two sniffer dogs serve all the sea ports and airports in the whole of the United Kingdom. It was promised that something would be done about it, so how many dogs do we have now?
Mr. Bradshaw: We do not get BSE by importing meat, but the hon. Gentleman is also absolutely wrong about the number of sniffer dogs. Since the responsibility for policing illegal food imports has been given to Customs and Excise, the number of seizures has more than trebled.
ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Will the part-time and redistributing Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for the first week of the September sitting will be as follows:
Monday 8 September—Second Reading of the Water Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 9 September—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 10 September—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 11 September—Motion to approve the Fifth Report on the Committee on Standards and Privileges, followed by a debate on defence in the United Kingdom on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 12 September—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will include:
Monday 15 September—Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill.
I hope that the whole House will join me in extending birthday wishes to the right hon. Michael Foot, who will be 90 next Wednesday. Michael remains one of our greatest parliamentarians, who served the House and his constituents with great distinction for 42 years. We salute him and his passion for humanity, and we wish him well. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I would also like to wish all Members—and, more importantly, all the staff of the House—a very happy and relaxing recess.
Mr. Forth: I am more than happy to echo the good wishes of the House to Michael Foot, and also to all colleagues and staff for the recess.
Will the part-time Leader of the House confirm that the Northern Ireland suspension order will be reconfirmed by a statutory instrument, effectively hidden away in a Committee Upstairs? Does he not believe that that is a matter of major constitutional importance—not just for Northern Ireland, but for the United Kingdom—so it should and must be dealt with on the Floor of the House by the whole House? I hope that he will reflect on that matter, and if it is true, as I am informed, that the Government intend to hide the matter Upstairs, I hope that he will rethink and bring it to the Floor of the House—not least in view of the light business that he has announced for the first week back in September.
On the proposals to abolish jury service, we know that the Government have decided to reverse, here in the House of Commons, their lordships' excellent stand on that matter. Does the Leader of the House intend to deploy Scottish Members yet again to deprive us in England of centuries of judicial history, or will he give
an undertaking that, now and in future, Scottish Members will be asked for a self-denying ordinance not to interfere in English judicial matters, as we do not interfere in theirs? I hope that he can give us that undertaking.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): PMOs? What is that?
Mr. Forth: Prime Minister's obfuscations. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) asked the Prime Minister whether he would confirm his commitment to reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster—a simple enough question, one would have thought. The Prime Minister said:
- "No, we made that commitment clear and we will of course carry it through."—[Official Report, 16 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 278.]
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that notices of no fewer than 46 written ministerial statements have appeared on the Order Paper today. One of them is on the important and controversial issue of community pharmacies. We should be modestly grateful that the Government have responded to concern on that important issue in the form of a statement—but because it is a written statement, we cannot ask any questions on it. That statement contains some of the most obscure language that I have seen for a long time, even from this Government.
I shall give the House a small example:
- "we will also make it easier for pharmacies to locate in areas where consumers already go, namely large shopping developments. But in doing so we must not undermine the market available to smaller community pharmacies. So only pharmacies wishing to locate in shopping developments over 15,000 square metres in size will be exempt from the control of entry requirement."
- "We will consult"—
- "at the end of August, giving a full 12-week consultation period for comment."
I have been approached this morning by a representative of some of our own staff in the House about a letter that has gone out this morning—in your name, Mr. Speaker—about the Portcullis pension plan. I would like the Leader of the House to give the matter some thought and work out how we may address the issue in the House. It is of the greatest importance to our own staff, because the letter contains a compulsion date
of 1 November, by which time they will be compelled to switch to new pension arrangements. I am told that there has not been adequate consultation on the matter and that staff representatives—including unions—have not been given proper access to the decision makers on the matter. I hope, therefore, that it can be revisited before the compulsion becomes effective on 1 November, to give a proper opportunity for consultation, or an element of choice, to be introduced. That is the least that can be done for our staff and their representatives. I hope that in the spirit of good will that the part-time Leader of the House offered us on the occasion of our rising for the recess, he will be able to consider the matter urgently and give some reassurance to our staff, who will be directly affected.Other than that, I wish the part-time Leader of the House a very pleasant recess.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |