| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): Would the Leader of the House, in a bipartisan spirit, look at an occurrence this morning when the Government announced in a written statement a plan to deal wholly differently with agreements made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—section 106 agreements? The fact that a Minister did not come to the House means that many people will suspect that this is the beginning of a new form of stealth taxation. I am sure that the Government would not wish that to be believed, and a sensible debate about this would demand that it should not be. Why did no Minister come to the
House to make this announcement, so that we could have a discussion about this major significant change in the way in which we handle our planning laws?
Mr. Hain: I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman raised that question, but he will also understand that the purpose of issuing written ministerial statements is to provide the House with more information, so that hon. Members like him can check their policy response. I assure him that there is no attempt to impose a stealth tax of any kind through this procedure. It is an attempt to modernise the planning system, which has been the objective all along.
Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): Is my right hon. Friend aware that early-day motion 1759 on House of Commons sitting arrangements has attracted 170 signatures from both sides of the House?
[That this House notes that the revised sitting hours and related arrangements have now been in place for 10 months; believes that there is now sufficient experience of the new arrangements to enable the House to judge what adjustments would be appropriate to enable the business of the House to be conducted more effectively; and calls for a review of the reforms.]
Will my right hon. Friend tell us when a review of these reforms will take place?
Mr. Hain: I am well aware of the number of signatures to that early-day motion. Obviously, there are strong feelings on this matter on both sides of the House, and sometimes bitter divisions of view on it. The House took a decision last year for the hours to be changed for the rest of this Parliament. In the consultations that I am having with many Members on both sides of the House, I want to keep continually under review exactly how we can ensure that some of the bottlenecks and teething problems in the new system can be resolved. I hope that we can take these matters forward soon, because there are a number of unsatisfactory aspects to the arrangements—for example, the very early sittings of some Committees, and the fact that the Chamber is locked earlier in the evening, which means that Members cannot bring dinner guests in to have a look when the House is not sitting. We should resolve issues such as those in a commonsense way, but there will have to be a review before the end of this Parliament to satisfy my hon. Friend's concerns and those of others.
Bob Russell: The Leader of the House referred to the strength of the economy. Does he accept, however, that hundreds of thousands of families are not benefiting from that strength? I am referring to the 35,000 households, for example, in the counties in the east of England with children who are living in accommodation that is not suitable for their needs. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this, so that we can discuss the social consequences of 25 years of insufficient investment in new council houses?
Mr. Hain: The social consequences are very serious, as the hon. Gentleman says, and we are seeking to address this issue. It is important, however, that he acknowledge that the hard-won economic stability that we have created through a combination of low inflation, low interest rates and high employment has brought
prosperity to his region and his constituency, along with more jobs—including in the areas that contain those particular dwellings. Building on the back of that economic stability, greater investment in housing—and social housing—can be taken forward. We cannot do that without the economic stability that we have created.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the EU Commission is to put to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health a proposal to approve a BT sweet corn called BT11, ahead of the rigorous regulations that are to be brought into force later this year? Doing that would end the moratorium in Europe on both genetically modified food and crops.
I have pressed my right hon. Friend in the past to have a debate on the Floor of the House on this issue, and I repeat today that things are happening in other places that are determining the possible future commercial planting of GM crops in this country. There is a need for a debate on the Floor of the House—notwithstanding the fact that I am grateful that there is to be a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall next week.
Mr. Hain: I was going to say to my hon. Friend that that debate was going to take place. The Minister will reply to it, and there will be an opportunity for all those issues to be raised and for her very proper concerns to be addressed. In no way should a series of, as it were, cascading developments be allowed to change policy in the way she is concerned about.
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me ask this question. May I raise with the Leader of the House an issue about which I am sure he is concerned, namely, access for disabled people to the House of Commons? Yesterday, three of my constituents from the Marlborough school in Woodstock, all of whom were wheelchair-bound, came to visit the House for Prime Minister's Questions. The Serjeant at Arms, the police and the Admissions Order Office were incredibly helpful; but is the Leader of the House aware that wheelchair users who want to watch Prime Minister's Questions are confined to staying behind the stone façade at the back of the Gallery? Does he agree that we really ought to do more, in 2003, to ensure that disabled constituents can come to the House of Commons and get a proper view of the proceedings and be treated better? Frankly, despite all the best efforts of the authorities of the House—who were magnificent—the current arrangements are not good enough.
Mr. Hain: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, and that of other Members. The House authorities are trying to deal with it. Access to the House for members of the public is crucial, and we must take a much more reformist approach to it. That applies to people with disabilities, and to other members of the community. I am keen for us to have a visitors' centre and a proper walkway, perhaps leading from the Members' Entrance, so that visitors can queue under cover rather than being stuck out in the rain. They are, after all, citizens of this country. They are the people
who vote us into this place. We should treat them with more respect, whether they have disabilities—the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to that issue—or not.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): As my right hon. Friend will know, in 2004 the Government will introduce regulations on consultation in the workplace, and are encouraging people to meet those standards as soon as possible. Will he set a really good example in this regard? Will he not just consult all unions, workers and parliamentary staff in the Houses of Parliament, but at least consult MPs again about the unworkable, unhelpful and even rather debilitating changed sitting hours?
Mr. Hain: I am indeed consulting all Members—including my hon. Friend, who has spoken to me about these matters and will, I am sure, continue to do so. I want to secure consensus, because, as I have said, there are strong views on both sides. We want to ensure that this is a modern place reflecting modern life outside.
Mr. Hain: I think that if we are not a House of Commons that reflects life outside, we will cease to command the respect of people outside.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): Were this week's articles by the Chancellor of the Exchequer part of the Government's euro roadshow campaign? To allay the fears of some of us who suspect that the roadshow does not exist, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many events he has attended since I last asked him this question? He boasted then that he had attended a meeting of the Welsh euro organising committee—a very exciting event. What other exciting events has he attended since?
Mr. James Wray (Glasgow, Baillieston): Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come to the House as soon as possible? Talk of interest rate increases always gives the jitters to first-time home buyers. We do not want to return to the 1980s under the last Government. I want the Chancellor to give an assurance that we will not see houses being repossessed, people being thrown out of their homes, and double-figure interest rates.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to question the Chancellor during next week's Treasury questions, but I can reassure him and his constituents that there is no prospect of a return to the sky-high interest rates and mortgage levels that we experienced under the Conservative Government. They dispossessed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, caused negative equity, and created the economic blight from which we, as a Labour Government, had to recover.
Our present interest rates are historically low for modern times, and the economic stability locked in by this Government will keep them low. Nevertheless, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want inflation to rise on the back of a strong economy, affecting his constituents and causing pressures on interest rates.
That is the issue with which the Bank of England has grappled, and I think that it made the right decision today.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |