| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Common Agricultural Policy
18. Martin Linton (Battersea) (Lab): If she will require the Rural Payments Agency to publish payments made under the common agricultural policy single payment scheme on a constituency basis. [57038]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jim Knight): The Rural Payments Agency published common agriculture policy payment information in 2005, disclosing recipients of payments by geographic location. The RPA will publish single payment scheme payments, probably by the end of September 2006, and is currently reviewing the basis of this publication.
Martin Linton: I hope that my hon. Friend will publish the figures by constituency because it is important for Members of Parliament to know how much is being disbursed in their areas. There is no reason why, having done that, he should not go on to include addresses and postcodes, too. After all, £1.6 billion is currently paid into the bank accounts of farmers and growers, apart from those in North Yorkshire apparently, and I see no reason why people who receive public money should not accept—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had 30 seconds of explanation but no question. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question quickly.
Martin Linton: Every other public contractor has to accept public accountability, so why should farmers and growers be different?
Jim Knight:
We are capable of disclosing information geographically but have yet to decide whether to do that on a constituency or a postcode basis. We must bear in mind our responsibilities to the individual recipients. It is important for my hon. Friend to know that some of our larger farmers, who are the larger recipients, are some of our more efficient farmers who embrace most readily the reforms that we are making to the common agricultural policy. We should not fall into the trap of simply lambasting some of the most efficient producers in this country.
9 Mar 2006 : Column 946
Cattle Testing
19. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): If she will make a statement on her plans for pre- and post-movement cattle testing. [57039]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Pre-movement testing of cattle in England will help to reduce the risk of TB spread. Our intention is to introduce pre-movement testing from 27 March, subject to the findings of the independent review that is currently under way.
Paddy Tipping: Bovine tuberculosis is an increasingly serious and costly problem. The focus so far has been on badger culling, but does the Minister accept that better farm biosecurity has an important role to play in reducing the incidence of the disease?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I would accept that. My hon. Friend is right to complain about the level of the focus in the consultation on badger culling. Many people do not realise, for example, that pre-movement and post-movement testing has already been introduced in Scotland, or that it will now be introduced in England and Wales. All vets and scientists advise that pre-movement testing is a complete no-brainer if we want to get a handle on the disease.
Incinerators
20. Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): How many new incinerators the Government expect to be built in England by 2020. [57041]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The number of new incinerators built will depend on the technologies and the scale of facilities chosen by local authorities. The Government estimate that waste to energy of all types will account for about 25 per cent. of our municipal waste by 2020, up from 9 per cent. today but considerably less than was envisaged under our 2000 waste strategy because we have done so well on recycling.
Mr. Scott: Has the Minister had any discussions with the Mayor of London on this vital issue?
Mr. Bradshaw: I have not had any such discussions directly, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had discussions with the Mayor of London recently on a range of matters. Furthermore, as part of the review of the powers of the Mayor and the Greater London authority, my officials regularly discuss whether waste should be included in any extension of those powers.
Business of the House
11.30 am
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the coming weeks?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The business of the House will be as follows:
Monday 13 March—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Identity Cards Bill.
Tuesday 14 March—Remaining stages of the Animal Welfare Bill.
Wednesday 15 March—Second Reading of the Education and Inspections Bill.
Thursday 16 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Terrorism Bill. Followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
Friday 17 March—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
Monday 20 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the costs of peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan followed by a debate on deficits in the national health service.
Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
At 10pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Details will be given in the Official Report.
Tuesday 21 March—Consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 22 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
Thursday 23 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 24 March—The House will not be sitting.
[The following is the information: Uncorrected oral and written evidence taken by the Health Committee on 1 and 6 December 2005 (HC 736-i,-ii and-iii), on Public Expenditure Health and Social Services 2005.]
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 and 23 March will be:
Thursday 16 March—A debate on the report from the Quadripartite Committee on strategic export controls.
Thursday 23 March—A debate on the participation of young people in democracy.
Mrs. May:
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks.
9 Mar 2006 : Column 948
The Government inherited a legacy of falling homelessness, yet there are now more than 120,000 homeless people, up 18 per cent. since 1997, and the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation has gone up 145 per cent. since 1997. Can we have a debate on the Government's failure to tackle the problem of homelessness?
Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Independent Police Complaints Commission report on the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes will be published?
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen reports that three of the Government's nominations for peerages have been blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. When asked yesterday whether Downing street had leaked this information, the Downing street press spokesman said:
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on the circumstances in which Downing street thinks that it is in its interests to leak confidential information?
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that Government Ministers should be accurate in statements to the press. Last week, in a broadcast on the investigation into whether the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had breached the ministerial code, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"It's the Cabinet Secretary, not a politician, the most senior civil servant deciding that Tessa has not breached the ministerial code."
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong. The Cabinet Secretary established the facts, but it was the Prime Minister—who, as far as I know, is a politician and not just an emissary from God—who said that the code had not been breached. Will the right hon. Gentleman now make a statement correcting his mistake?
Today the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, criticised the Prime Minister for refusing to act on the committee's proposal for an independent body to investigate breaches of the ministerial code, saying that the Prime Minister's failure to act was leading to a "loss of public confidence". We support the proposal for an independent body to review the code, and the Prime Minister's refusal to act cannot continue. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on his position, and for a full debate on the ministerial code, so that public confidence in Government can be restored?
Public confidence will not be improved by today's report that the Government plan to restrict the right of Members of Parliament to put questions to Ministers. However inconvenient it is for Ministers, surely the right of Members to question them and hold the Government to account lies at the very heart of our democracy. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a debate on his plan to gag MPs?
In a written statement issued in the House on 13 December last year, the Secretary of State for Transport said that letting the Greater Western franchise to First Group would deliver
Given that it means cuts in services to Berkshire, Wiltshire and elsewhere, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House to correct that misleading statement?
In the light of all those issues—Downing street leaks, misleading statements by Ministers, loss of public confidence in the ministerial code, and attempts to gag Members of Parliament—has not the time come for a debate in the House on standards of ministerial conduct?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |