| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Recycling
20. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) (Lab): If she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's progress towards the introduction of home-based waste separation for recycling. [160298]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Waste management is a devolved matter. In 2001–02, 58 per cent. of households in England received a kerbside collection of recyclable materials separate from the residual waste. The Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 requires all waste collection authorities in England to collect at least two recyclable materials separate from the residual waste by the end of 2010.
Mr. Cunningham : I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What is he doing to encourage local authorities to sort out waste management, and, in particular, to deal with the large number of refrigerators stored in various places? Nothing is being done to recycle them.
Mr. Morley: New measures have been brought in to encourage local authorities to develop more kerbside collection. They include additional funds through the challenge fund and the waste minimisation fund. With regard to the separation of dry recyclates, there has been enormous progress in the past couple of years by local authorities, for which they deserve great credit. I very much hope that those local authorities that have not made as much progress will recognise the standards of the best and bring their standards up to them.
Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would first like on behalf of the whole House to convey our deepest sympathy and condolences to the relatives of all those many, many people who have been so shockingly killed or injured by the bombings in Madrid today, in Europe's worst-ever atrocity. We are outraged and angry, and stand shoulder to shoulder with the Spanish people and their Government in the fight against this evil kind of terrorism.
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 15 March—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. Remaining stages of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill.
Tuesday 16 March—Remaining stages of the Traffic Management Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 17 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
Thursday 18 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
Monday 22 March—Continuation of the Budget.
Tuesday 23 March—Conclusion of the Budget.
Wednesday 24 March—Opposition Day [7th allotted day, part 1]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced. This will be followed by a debate on the Equitable Life inquiry on a motion for the adjournment of the House, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Thursday 25 March—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a debate on defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 26 March—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Heald: I start by joining the Leader of the House in expressing condolences and sympathy to the victims of the bombs in Madrid and their families. I understand that so far it is reported that 170 people have died. It is an appalling tragedy, and we should express our feelings of sympathy and solidarity to the whole of the Spanish people. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks about fighting terrorism and standing firm in the west on this vital concern and issue.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business, and particularly for the debates on defence and Equitable Life—both of which I have been calling for for a long time.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked the Prime Minister why the Government are trying to reverse the ban on the export of live horses. That will result in many ponies facing a miserable journey, only to be killed in southern
Europe. The Leader of the House, kind-hearted as ever, in contrast to some of his colleagues, immediately shouted out, as reported at column 1522 of Hansard, that it was an issue of animal welfare. Indeed it is, and it is a matter of concern to animal lovers across the country. Yet the Prime Minister claimed not to know about the issue. That is surprising, given that he received a 65,000-person petition about this widely reported issue only last week. Is it not clear that we need a statement clarifying matters, preferably from the Prime Minister himself?In his article in The Guardian this week the Leader of the House claimed that Labour had made an effort to lose its image as centralising control freaks, but that Back Benchers still felt marginalised. Is not the right hon. Gentleman guilty in all this, with his refusal to allow proper time for debate on important issues such as tuition fees, the Hutton report and the local government finance settlement? Has he forgotten the Government policy announcements saved up for the recent recess, referred to in early day motion No. 742?
[That this House notes with regret that the Government chose to save up many policy announcements, such as the reform of the examination system, substantial changes to the Civil Service and drug testing for school students, so that they could be made outside Parliament during the half-term recess; expresses its concern at this downgrading of Parliament and abuse of the stated purpose of the half-term break; and calls on the Government to make important announcements in Oral Statements to the House, so that honourable Members have the opportunity to hold the Government to account.]
That was done so that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues were simply unable to question the decisions made. It is not just that they feel marginalised; the fact is that they are marginalised.
Has the Leader of the House considered further my request that there should be a full review of the way in which the Government treat our Select Committees, as set out in early-day motion 760, given that that is based on the comments of Labour Members, as well as those of other parties? Is it surprising if they feel marginalised, when he refuses to do anything about it?
Has the Leader of the House any news about the timing of the debate on the aviation White Paper—something that hon. Members on both sides of the House care about? Is the reason for the delay that the decisions made were so unpopular? If so, is it not wrong that such an important debate should be kicked into the long grass for the Government's convenience? Can the right hon. Gentleman understand why hon. Members feel marginalised?
Mr. Hain: May I first express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his statements in joining me in condemning the terrorism in Madrid? What has happened underlines the threat from terrorist attacks of that kind that we all face here in Britain, as well as elsewhere in Europe—not just in the United States—and we must be vigilant about them. The Government intend to remain vigilant about the danger of such attacks.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to describe me as kind-hearted: I will take that both as a compliment and as a damaging attack on my career prospects.
On the export of horses and ponies, the Prime Minister responded as he did, but he also said that he would reply, and there is absolutely no inconsistency about that.
On policy development both in the Labour party and in the House, I am in favour of opening up policy debate. Indeed, we are encouraging that process in the House of Commons. This Government are more accountable to the House than any previous Government. The Prime Minister has spent more time in the House answering questions, making statements and leading debates than his predecessor, a Conservative Prime Minister. He attends the Liaison Committee regularly. He is accountable there. No Prime Minister has ever been in that forum before. That is accountability. That is opening up the policy debate.
In addition, Ministers are more open than any of their predecessors in opening up the policy debate. That is what the big conversation is about. This Government, unlike the Conservatives, will face up to the country's future challenges by travelling across the country, as I will be doing later today, when I go to Birmingham to engage in a policy debate with the people about the future challenges that the Opposition refuse to confront.
On Select Committees, we have a proud record in strengthening their resources and in putting them right at the heart of parliamentary accountability, so I will not take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about that.
On the timing of the debate on the aviation White Paper, the hon. Gentleman has quite properly been asking for such a debate, and there is concern throughout the House. We will hold the debate as soon as it is proper to do so, but we are embarking on a long-term strategy, which the Secretary of State for Transport announced, on the future of our airports and aviation over 30 years. Getting that right is important. Debating it is equally important, and we will do so when the time is right.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): On behalf of my colleagues and myself, may I entirely associate us with the remarks made by the Leader of the House? We share his dismay and his horror, as well as the sympathy that he expresses to the people in Madrid. As I came into the House, I was not aware whether any perpetrator had been identified. Can the Leader of the House give us any indication of whether it would be possible, if and when the perpetrators are identified, for a Minister to come to the House to make a statement? Of course if those in al-Qaeda, rather than the Basque separatists, are the perpetrators, there are implications for our security in the House and in this country, as part of the European Union. I hope that he will agree to that.
We are delighted that the Leader of the House has agreed to hold a short debate on Equitable Life and the Penrose report, but may I suggest that we need a full day's debate in Government time on the whole issue of the regulation of financial services and the protection of consumers? The extremely damaging and very important report on endowment mortgages from the Treasury Committee today shows that the financial services sector is simply not well regulated. Regulation,
which is a Government function, is simply not doing the job. It is not just a question of Equitable Life because, as the Select Committee has told us, 60 per cent. of those receiving advice about endowment mortgages might have received inadequate—mis-selling—advice. The Select Committee identifies a black hole of £40 billion.The whole regulatory regime is now on trial, and I think that the Leader of the House would agree that it is no longer possible and desirable simply to blame the regulatory regime under the previous Government. We must consider how the regime is operating now. Can we therefore have an indication from him as to how soon we can have a full day's debate in Government time on the whole regulatory regime?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |