| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD):
Has the Leader of the House had any notification from the Secretary of State for Defence that he will come to the House before the summer recess to announce the downsizing of Her Majesty's armed forces? If that is to happen, will the Leader of the House guarantee that that statement will not be made on a quiet day to bury bad news? Does he not understand that there is great unease in military circles, particularly in garrison towns, such as Colchester, which are already suffering from the
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1037
overstretch and undermanning of the Army? If the Government are planning to downsize the armed forces, let us at least have a debate, let us have it before the summer, and let us have all the cards on the table.
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State for Defence will want to come to the House as soon as it is possible for him to do so, and practical in business management terms, after the comprehensive spending review has been announced on Monday, when the hon. Gentleman can raise those issues. I am sure that he will agree that what we have seen over recent years and what will continue is massive investment in our defence forces on a scale that has not occurred before under any Government, especially a Conservative Government. I do not know how far back he wants to go in terms of a Liberal Government, but that support for our armed forces and the work that they do will continue under this Labour Government. Of course, under a Conservative Government there would be cuts in defence spending, along with many other cuts as well.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): May I ask the Leader of the House to allow an urgent debate next week on the district auditor's role in ensuring probity in local government? As a result of an Adjournment debate last month, we exposed the fact that the London borough of Hillingdon was forging and fiddling its planning performance figures to gain Government planning service delivery grant. The district auditor has completed his inquiry and is preparing his report but has not interviewed all the relevant former staff or the councillor who exposed the scandal, has not approached me or the residents who are coming forward with other planning scandals, exposing them individually, and proposes to provide the report to the London borough of Hillingdon's senior members and officers, who will decide whether that report is published or sees the light of day. I ask that with a sense of urgency.
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and the Ministers concerned will have noted it very carefully.
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): The Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 1473, on the activities of a company called Walters (UK), which is removing contaminated waste from my constituency, but in doing so is causing extensive atmospheric pollution of the local area.
[That this House expresses its concern about the operation of Walters (UK) in removing contaminated waste from the Castlegate development (Penrhos) in Caerphilly; believes that the people of Caerphilly are having to endure unacceptable noxious odours because of the failure of the company to prevent atmospheric pollution; points out that the company has belatedly brought in additional equipment, owing to public concern, and that this equipment should have been onsite from the first day of the operation; calls upon Walters (UK) publicly to apologise to the people of Caerphilly for the noxious odours which their operation has released; and suggests that all honourable Members should examine carefully whether this company should carry out future work in their constituencies.]
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1038
Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that company's activities in having total disregard for my constituents' interests? Will he call on the company to consider compensating my constituents for the inconvenience that it has caused?
Mr. Hain: I understand the strong feelings that my hon. Friend has properly expressed on behalf of his constituents. I understand that the situation has been constantly monitored by the local authority, which has appointed specialist consultants to advise it, and that the Environment Agency is also monitoring any impact on ground and surface water. Although the smells are very unpleasant, the regulators are apparently satisfied that no health risk is involved. I am told that work on removing the wastes that are causing the odours should be completed by mid-July.
Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South) (Lab): May I repeat the request to hold a debate on the Floor of the House about the written announcement about the designation of authorities subject to council tax capping made by the Minister for Local and Regional Government? The statement gives central Government a bad name. The words "mind-bogglingly" and "stupid" spring to mind when considering the fact that Nottingham faces an overspend of £180,000 and a cost of £250,000 to re-bill every council tax payer to give them a rebate of £1.75—less than the cost of a pint. As we will have to defend that to local ratepayers, will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to explain why he refused to allow Nottingham to address that in the current year's budget, make the adjustment in the year that follows, use the £250,000 for productive purposes and not put us in an absurd position? If that was being done by the councillors themselves, we would demand resignations or sackings—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is packing a speech into a question.
Mr. Hain: The Minister for Local and Regional Government will, in due course, read with close concern the points that my hon. Friend makes, but I repeat what I have said already. The Government are between a rock and a hard place: local council tax payers, including his constituents, naturally become very angry about unacceptable council tax rises, and it is important that the Government maintain close control over excessive council tax increases. Of course, Nottingham and other local authorities were given plenty of notice to allow them to adjust the situation before such action was necessary.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): My right hon. Friend knows that the Public Administration Committee, on which I serve, will publish a hugely significant report next week. May we have an early debate on whether we really need lords and ladies, knights and dames in this day and age? There is huge interest about that subject outside the House, and I hope that we can debate the report.
Mr. Hain: I cannot comment on a report that has not been published.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab):
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1448, on the regulation of estate agents?
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1039
[That this House recognises the Government's proposals to regulate the buying and selling of homes by the introduction of home information packs; notes that, while solicitors, surveyors, home inspectors and financial advisers are all subject to regulation, estate agents, who are responsible for the co-ordination of the buying and selling process, are not subject to any regulatory or licensing arrangements; and believes that, in light of the abuses and bad practices highlighted by the Consumers' Association and the BBC's Brassed Off Britain, and with the support of the UK Association of Estate Agents and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, all estate agents involved in the buying and selling of homes should be subject to statutory regulation, including an independent disputes resolution process with compensation arrangements for disadvantaged customers.]
Given the proposals in the Housing Bill on the introduction of home information packs, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate, so that those who are central to the most important financial transaction that most people will undertake in their lives are first, fit and proper people, secondly, properly licensed, and thirdly, qualified to do the job? May I suggest that he will make himself extremely popular with the general public if he accedes to that very modest proposal?
Mr. Hain: I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The Department of Trade and Industry is considering the Office of Fair Trading report on the estate agency market in England and Wales, which includes recommendations on the future regulation of the industry. We aim to publish a response shortly.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): In previous years, I have always noticed that my constituents' complaints about antisocial behaviour—everything from neighbour nuisance to under-age drinking and even the misuse of air rifles—increase as we enter the summer period. As local authorities and the police can now enforce antisocial behaviour orders, may we have a debate next week to assess the effectiveness of those orders? That would also enable us to tell the public why the Liberal Democrats oppose them.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |