| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
(b) on 5th September shall be treated as if tabled on 6th September; and
(c) between 7th and 10th September shall be treated as if tabled on 11th September.
4. Standing Order No. 22(4) shall apply to Questions tabled under this Order, with the substitution in sub-paragraph (a) of the word ‘four’ for the word ‘two’, and including the provision in sub-paragraph (b) limiting to five the number of Questions for answer on a named day which may be tabled by a Member on any one day.
5. A Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, may give notice on one of the days specified in paragraph 1 of his intention to make a ministerial statement in written form on one of the days specified in paragraph 2.
6. In the event of a recall of the House under Standing Order No. 13, the Speaker may publish a memorandum amending the provisions of this Order, and such amendments shall have effect as if they had been agreed to by the House.— [Mr. Watts.]
delegated legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.— [Mr. Watts.]
committees
That Mr Jeremy Hunt be discharged from the International Development Committee and James Duddridge be added. —[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
That Angela Browning be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr Philip Dunne be added .—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Petitions
Post Office Card Account
10.1 pm
Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the Post Office is talking about reducing the number of post offices to 4,000, and that at the moment there are 14,500. You will know that the Government refuse to tell us what, in their view, the number should be, even though they are the major shareholders. That impacts strongly on the Post Office card account, which everyone thought would continue almost ad nauseam, but which we are now told will continue only until 2010. There are over 4,000 petitioners, and I am delighted to present their petition to the House. It states:
To the House of Commons the petition of the residents of Northampton South declares that Britain’s Post Offices, the heart of many local communities, are under threat. The Petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons call upon Her Majesty’s Government to reconsider the policy of phasing out the Post Office Card Account which will deprive the sub-post office network of 40 per cent. of their income. The Petitioners remain etc.
Civil Service
10.2 pm
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): On the day on which civil service staff presented their claim for this year’s increases in pay, I should like to present a petition from 50,000 civil servants. It is the largest petition presented to Parliament in the history of the civil service. I present it on behalf of the PCS parliamentary group. It states:
The petition of staff working in the Civil Service
Declares that the petitioners have grave concerns about the growing differences in pay, leave entitlement, and other conditions between civil servants employed by different government departments, agencies and other related bodies, and the effect that such differences are having upon morale; and express their wish for national pay bargaining to establish common standards and minimum requirements on pay and conditions.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Minister for the civil service to work towards national pay bargaining in the civil service.
Fraser Day Hospital
10.3 pm
Mr. Mark Lancaster (North-East Milton Keynes) (Con):
It is a pleasure to present two petitions to the House. The first concerns the possible closure of the
Fraser Day hospital in Newport Pagnell, signed by councillor Debbie Brock and 1,067 other people. It states:
The Petition of the residents of Milton Keynes,
Declares that the proposed closure of the Fraser Day Hospital in Newport Pagnell will have an adverse impact on intermediate care in Milton Keynes and that it is unacceptable that as the population of Milton Keynes continues to increase, this particular service is being withdrawn.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust to stop the closure of the Fraser Day Hospital.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Mental Health Services (Milton Keynes)
10.4 pm
Mr. Lancaster: My second petition is signed by Mrs. Sarah Dewey and 367 other people, and it regards the proposed cuts to adult mental health services in Milton Keynes. It states:
The Petition of the residents of Milton Keynes,
Declares that the proposed cuts to Day Services, Drug and Alcohol Services and the Memory Screening Clinic will have an adverse impact on care for citizens with Mental Health Service requirements in Milton Keynes...The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to work with the Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust to stop the proposed cuts to Adult Mental Health Services in Milton Keynes.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Innocent Must Stay Campaign
10.5 pm
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab):
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I present a petition to the House of Commons for which 4,199 signatures have been collected by the “Innocent Must Stay” campaign, working in collaboration with local
churches, community organisations and the Tameside Advertiser and Tameside Reporter in order to prevent the deportation of my constituent, Innocent Nkung, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The petitioners assert that as a member of the pro-democracy Christian Union for Renewal and Justice, which helped to organise against the DRC Government’s attempts to block elections, Innocent was imprisoned, raped and tortured by supporters of the DRC Government. The petitioners also assert that Innocent’s family have been further terrorised by the regime since Innocent fled the country in May last year, and that Innocent would be placed in serious danger if he were to return at this time.
The Petition of the Innocent Must Stay Campaign
Declares that Innocent-Prosper Nkung Empi deserves to be given asylum within the United Kingdom due to his and his family’s recent experiences of torture by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty’s Government to show compassion and to allow him to stay safely within the United Kingdom.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Radioactive Waste Disposal (Foulness)
10.6 pm
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): I present a petition concerning the disposal of radioactive waste on Foulness island. The petition has led to a constructive dialogue between myself, the Ministry of Defence, the Atomic Weapons Establishment, the Environment Agency and Qinetiq. The petition has over 700 signatures and was completed with the support of the Southend Echo.
The Petitioners request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to do all within its power to prevent this disposal of radioactive waste on Foulness and ensure that this does not occur at any time in the future.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
New Forest (Ministerial Mandate)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Jonathan Shaw.]
10.7 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to hold an Adjournment debate on an issue of vital importance in the New Forest. I am indebted to Anthony Pasmore, one of the verderers of the New Forest and a monthly correspondent in the New Forest newspaper of record, the New Milton Advertiser and Lymington Times.
The Minister’s mandate sets out the rules by which the Forestry Commission must administer the New Forest. It establishes
“conservation of the natural and cultural heritage as the principal objective of management”.
My purpose in asking the Minister to respond to the debate is to give him the opportunity to reaffirm that principle against the fears that it may be superseded.
The Forestry Commission raises revenue. That is why it calls itself Forest Enterprise. It might raise revenue through commercial forestry or through commercially exploiting the leisure opportunities afforded by the New Forest. Arguably, the latter has become a more favourable target in the existing climate.
I should like the Minister to deny categorically the rumours that are circulating that the Minister’s mandate will become a dead letter, and that the primacy of conservation will be superseded by the need to provide recreation opportunities. I have two specific concerns, with which I shall illustrate the problem. The first is to do with the campsites in the New Forest. They fill some 357 acres of the forest, not including the areas around the campsites that are inevitably affected and disrupted by their existence.
This has been a long-running sore—a battle between the Forestry Commission, which obviously wants to increase the services and the pitches available in those campsites in order to generate more revenue, and the verderers of the New Forest who represent the commoners and the rights of grazing. Currently, that battle is joined over the Roundhill and Hollands Wood campsites. But now something of a quite different order has arisen.
In May this year the Forestry Commission and the Camping and Caravanning Club announced a new joint venture partnership, Forest Holidays. Forest Holidays will lease the campsites of the New Forest, all 357 acres, and the press statement announcing this new venture stated that it
“opens the door to Forest Holidays developing even more camping and cabin sites on Forestry Commission land”.
It then goes on to say that the objective of the new venture
“will be to modernise the facilities across the network of Forest Holiday sites.”
What does that all mean? It certainly means more pitches, with electric hook-ups. Does it mean more roads and paths? Does it mean, for example, security lighting, entertainment opportunities, shops, playgrounds, perhaps a swimming pool, perhaps even a swimmers’ sub-tropical paradise, as exists at Centre Parcs, or even a “stately pleasure-dome”, such as Kubla
Khan decreed, in “caverns measureless to man”? Remember that we speak of the New Forest, a world heritage site, our smallest national park, where the camp sites are never far from the most sensitive parts of the forest core.
All that stands between these potential developments being realised are the verderers of the New Forest, armed, of course, with the Minister’s mandate. Will they be supported by the Minister and his mandate, or will they be bullied into submission or even circumvented by a new national park authority, which as a local authority is armed with compulsory purchase powers?
Of course, I have deliberately exaggerated in order to point to the potential danger that exists for the future. I do that in order that we recognise that danger now so that we can guard against it. The Minister’s reaffirmation of the core principle of his mandate tonight will be a powerful guard against that potential future that I have just described.
I now come to a more pressing and imminent concern, and that is the disposal by the Forestry Commission of Holmsley lodge and Shrike cottage, together with 13 magnificent acres at the heart of the New Forest. I am reassured by a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), of 4 July when he assured me that no final decision has been taken on this matter. I hope to persuade the Minister to abandon this proposal entirely, but if I fail to do that, at least to reconsider the time scale in which this is to take place. The current tenants have been told that they need to leave by January 2007. Given the business that they have and the fact that they have nowhere to go and that they have been in those properties for 40 years, I suggest that a much longer time scale would be necessary.
I find, surprisingly, that I am at odds with the verderers on this particular question. Because the verderers have backed the Forestry Commission’s proposal. I honestly believe that in this respect they have made the wrong call. It was a narrow decision made on the casting vote of the official verderer. Perhaps the verderers were influenced in that decision by the campsite issue, and not wanting to open up the possibility of war on two fronts with the Forestry Commision at any one time.
I also understand the verderers’ concern that properties be made available for commoning. I would not say for one moment that the verderers were bribed in the decision that they came to, but as the Under-Secretary put it to me, rather delicately, in his letter of 4 July:
“Therefore if the sale is approved a proportion of the funds raised would be reinvested in affordable housing for commoners.”
It is, of course, right and proper that the verderers should take that into account. I understand that the offer of one property was increased to two, and the verderers reached their decision accordingly. What the Under-Secretary did not say in that letter—perhaps the Minister will throw some light on this matter, if not tonight, then in correspondence—is the proportion of the funds generated by that sale that will be reinvested in housing for commoners.
In its letter to me of 15 May, the Forestry Commission stated that the properties concerned do not meet the criteria set out in the Illingworth report. On Holmsley lodge, it stated:
“the house does not make a practical family home.”
And on Shrike cottage, it stated:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |