|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
That the following provisions shall apply to the Climate Change Bill [Lords]:
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8th July 2008.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on any messages from the Lords) may be programmed. [Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Climate Change Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
(1) grants by the Secretary of State to the Committee on Climate Change;
(2) grants by the Secretary of State to administrators of, and participants in, trading schemes;
(3) expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in acquiring units, or interests in units, representing
(4) expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State as the Administrator appointed by virtue of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004;
(5) payments by the Secretary of State as that Administrator to transport fuel suppliers;
(6) any other expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under or in consequence of the Act. [Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Climate Change Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise
(1) the imposition of charges on persons using a scheme for registering or otherwise keeping track of carbon units;
(2) the imposition of charges in connection with trading schemes;
(3) the payment of sums received by the Administrator appointed by virtue of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004 into the Consolidated Fund instead of being used to meet the Administrators costs or to make payments to transport fuel suppliers; and
(4) the payment of other sums into the Consolidated Fund. [Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Accounts, Audit and EEA State Amendments) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved. [Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
Mr. Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I am most grateful for this opportunity, on the day of the termination of consultation on the closure of post offices in Shropshire, to be able to present this petition on behalf of the users of post offices in the Ludlow constituency. Some 2,165 people have signed the petition, which opposes the plans to close 14 post offices in the constituencysome 30 per cent. of the post offices currently open.
The Petition of users of Post Offices in the Ludlow Constituency,
Declares that plans to close 14 Post Offices in the Ludlow constituency, 9 of which are in the last remaining shop in the village, will affect many users of Post Office services, particularly vulnerable people with limited access to alternative branches and undermine sustainability of the local community. Withdrawal of the Post Office from the local shop will threaten the future of many remaining village shops, and introduction of a mobile van service for a few hours a week in 7 villages does nothing to reduce this threat to our communities.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to be aware of the Petitioners concerns against closure of Post Offices in the Ludlow constituency and to instruct Post Office Ltd to halt the closure of these Post Offices.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the people of Chilham, in my constituency, who are very concerned about the threat to reduce the rail services that they currently enjoy. This petition contains 550 signatures and states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that Southeastern Railway agrees to continue to provide a minimum of two trains an hour at peak times and an hourly service at off-peak times and weekends at Chilham Station; provision of a full train service will avoid the increasing use of cars on already overcrowded and dangerous local roads, avoid exacerbating traffic management problems, avoid increasing pollution and avoid detracting from the vibrancy of Chilham as a centre for rural tourism, business and living.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I rise to introduce a debate on stoma and incontinence appliances in primary care in the United Kingdom, and the drug regulations that cover this area. It is true to say that many people care about this issue because it affects their lives. I want to begin by thanking my constituent, Alison Whitely, who works for Astra Tech, one of the companies that has spent some time coming to my surgery to inform me about the potential changes and their impact for patients.
Since 2005 there have been six reviews, costing the Government about £2.5 million in consultants fees, and probably costing the Department about £1.9 million in expenses. For most of the time that I have been in Parliament I have not had many people contact me about such services, because on the whole over the past decade they have been pretty good. However, in recent years people have contacted me when they thought that there would be changes and perhaps a risk to the services provided, because that has a real impact on peoples lives.
As we know, there have been announcements today changing the regime. It is a highly technical and complex area with lots of issues to look at, so many in the industry have hot towels round their heads tonight as they try to work out what changes have occurred and their impact on their company. They will no doubt come forward during the forthcoming 12-week consultation period with proposed further changes that they would like to see.
However, broadly speaking there has been a welcome for the fact that in the earlier phases of consultation the Government listened to some of the concerns raised. It was thought that the reduction in budget might be £25 million. According to the Governments figures in todays announcement, the reduction has been £5.4 million, which is a lot better. However, the welcome has been a little like that of the condemned man who has to face the rest of his term in prison, in that since 2005 the industry has had a price freeze. We know that wages go up, taxes go up, and the price of petrol goes upa lot of the services provided by the urology industry require home deliveryand all those factors are feeding in. Many of the products in question are produced from plastics based on oil, and we know that the price of oil is going up. We therefore have a price cut in an environment where there is a lot of inflationary pressure, so there will be pressure on the industry and it will impact on the provision of services to patients, which may have a wider impact on the national health service.
More than 450,000 people are served by this industry: about 100,000 on stoma, and some 350,000 on a whole range of other products produced by the industry. From what I have learned in recent years, it is basically a good industry with a wide range of services. It provides not only products but a pretty widespread home delivery service, and additional services and advice are given as a matter of course, which people value. Indeed, the industry has been so successful over recent years that many people have incontinence products of which their own family are not aware, because they are able to live pretty
normal lives. The technology, innovation and advance in this area has led that to be so, and it has been of real benefit to people.
There has been concern about the proposed changes, and I intend to focus on just some of the comments that have been fed back to me from some of the companies involved. Mary White of the Paediatric Continence Forum, who comes from Matlock in Derbyshire, is concerned about incontinence products provided to mothers for their young babies. The problem is that many of the products provided for young babies are specialist products from small manufacturers and there is a concern that the changes will impact on people who produce single products, particularly those for niche areas. I hope that the Minister will think about how the changes will impact on the provision for those with babies.
Home delivery is an important service for those with young children. If people who have one child with incontinence problems and two or three other children to look after receive a home delivery service, that is very important to them. One of the major players in the industry is Coloplast Ltd, which is based in Peterborough. I believe that it is the biggest company and that it has a wide range of products. It, too, has raised a number of concerns with me, and it has stated:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|