| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West): May we have a debate about the rules governing the portrayal of parliamentarians in the House of Commons art collection? Is this not a timely moment to examine the way in which the rules governing, for example, the portrayal of former and current Leaders of the Opposition work, and perhaps commission some suitable modern art? Could we not ask Damian Hirst to produce a suitably realistic presentation of both the current and the former Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Hain: I think that that would be a very good idea.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1868, about a chlorine emergency at Staveley in my constituency?
[That this House calls for a full investigation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the escape of chlorine at Staveley in Derbyshire from the chemical works of Rhodia Eco Services which led to workers being taken to hospital, children locked in schools, the blocking of a wide section of the town and residents having to follow emergency procedures for a considerable length of time with many being unable to return to their homes; and requires action to be taken so that nothing similar will occur in the future.]
That took place on Monday at Rhodia Eco Services, and the escape of chlorine gas led to areas of Staveley being blocked off for several hours, with all the disruption that that caused in schools and elsewhere. May we have a written statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the role of the Health and Safety Executive in examining that episode? The statement could also cover the fact that, with the honourable exception of Peak FM, Radio Hallam and today's Derbyshire Times, the media carried little about the incident, because we happen to be at the edge of several different media areas. That major crisis should have been given the type of coverage that it was entitled to, which probably adds to the case that I am making for the Health and Safety Executive to take firm action to ensure that nothing like that happens in the town again.
Mr. Hain: I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State shares his concern about that serious incident, which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have brought to the attention of the House. I am sure that she will want to take the matter up and make a written ministerial statement about it at some point.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Would not a debate on the unneeded surplus in the national insurance fund help the Government to find a practical solution to help the Allied Steel and Wire workers? At the end of the
financial year there will be a £30 billion surplus—£20 billion above the necessary contingency fund. The fund has already been used for extraneous purposes, such as compensating industry for green taxes, which cost £2 billion a year. Would it not be reasonable, just and practical to use a tiny part of that huge surplus to compensate the Allied Steel and Wire pensioners?
Mr. Hain: I know that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has looked closely at such matters, because he, like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has received a delegation from the ASW workers, along with MPs who have, quite properly, been concerned about the situation. I shall ensure that he is aware of my hon. Friend's proposition.
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): There has been a good deal of discussion in the House about the European Union constitution, but it has emerged only recently that it is to include an energy chapter. There is a great deal of concern that that could involve ceding competence over this country's oil and gas reserves to the European Union. May we have a debate on that important subject? Most Members are pleased that the Government have made taxation a red line issue, but many would wish to express the view that the licensing and control of our oil and gas reserves, which we have exercised since they were discovered in 1964, should also be a red line issue.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, I tabled an amendment on that matter on behalf of the Government in the proceedings of the Convention on the Future of Europe. It was one of the few unresolved issues on which we still need a proper outcome in the negotiations. I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is proceeding along the lines that he advocates. Licensing must indeed remain a matter to be supervised and directed as it is at present—and other countries, including the Netherlands, share our position, so I think I can reassure him that we shall get an outcome that he will find satisfactory.
Point of Order
1.18 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether you have received notification either from a Home Office Minister or from a Defence Minister of an intention to make a statement about the implications for homeland security of recent reports of incidents on the high seas that suggest that al-Qaeda-type organisations have it in mind to use large tankers or merchantmen as airliners were used to attack America? This is a very worrying development, and the House should have an opportunity to discuss it.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no notification, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be noted by the appropriate Minister.
Modernisation
[Relevant Document: The First Report from the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2002–03, HC 1222, relating to Programming of Bills.]
1.20 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move,
- That Orders A to I relating to the Programming of Bills, made by the House on 28th June 2001, and programme orders of the current session of Parliament relating to bills which are carried over to the next session, shall continue to have effect in the next session of Parliament.
- That the Order relating to Deferred Divisions, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session Parliament.
As the Order Paper indicates, the first report of the Modernisation Committee, on the programming of Bills, is relevant to the debate. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Modernisation Committee for the positive way in which they engaged in producing this report. They have produced a constructive and thoughtful report on a complex and sometimes contentious matter. Notwithstanding the minority report submitted by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose sincere and principled objections to programming I acknowledge, in the end the Committee adopted the final report unanimously and without division.
The Committee's report sets out the context in which this afternoon's debate will, I hope, proceed. We accept that the programming of parliamentary business does not always work as well as we might wish, but properly enacted, programming is a positive development, allowing more effective scrutiny of legislation. The notion that the scrutiny of Bills should be subject to a parliamentary timetable has been a staple recommendation of parliamentary and independent reports for the past 20 years. In 1985, the Procedure Committee recommended that Bills be timetabled. In 1992, the Jopling Committee reiterated that proposal and in the same year the independent Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process regarded it as a central feature of any reforms to improve scrutiny. And in 1997, the Modernisation Committee's first report highlighted the importance of programming legislation, stating that other proposals for improving the legislative process—such as the scrutiny of draft Bills—could not be seen in isolation from the legislative timetable.
It is in this context that I hope we can debate this afternoon's motions. I urge all Members to recognise that, as paragraph 9 of the Modernisation Committee's report points out,
- "there was never a 'golden age' of full scrutiny of all clauses of all bills; on the contrary, prior to the introduction of programming, there was deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the haphazard nature of scrutiny, which led to . . . considerable pressure from Members and others, over a number of years, for some form of timetabling of Government bills to be introduced; and . . . the procedures whereby bills might be programmed have been the subject of careful consideration in the past".
- "When it works well, it is of benefit, a) to the Government, which is assured of getting its legislative programme; b) to the Opposition, which is assured of having adequate time to scrutinise those parts of a bill to which it attaches importance; and c) to the country as a whole, which benefits from better legislation."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |