| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): I met several hundred members of the Bristol Somali community on Saturday at a conference that was set up to discuss gangs and knife crime, including some of the issues raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Will the immigration Minister agree to meet me and some of my hon. Friends to discuss some of the issues that are particularly affecting the Somali community in the UK?
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Phil Woolas): Of course I will.
T8. [229802] Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): The very easy availability of very cheap alcohol obviously causes a problem in this country, but the deeper problem is a cultural one, especially when we compare behaviour here with that in some foreign countries. What do the Government think causes that bad cultural behaviour and what can be done about it?
Jacqui Smith: I think that it is right to say that the vast majority of young people—over 18, of course—drink alcohol responsibly, but there is a minority for whom the way in which alcohol is promoted and their lack of understanding of its impact have had a detrimental effect. That is why we, as a Government, have worked hard through the “Know your Limits” advertising campaign and through the work of my colleagues in the Department of Health to bring home to people the potential danger that irresponsible drinking can cause. People need to behave responsibly both for their own health and on account of the impact of their behaviour on the wider community, and we will continue to make that case.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement about undesirable people who visit the UK? Is she aware that many have wondered over the years why we have allowed into this country people whose sole purpose while visiting Britain has been to encourage violence and, in some cases, terrorism, albeit in other countries? What my right hon. Friend said today is very welcome and I hope that it will be implemented.
Jacqui Smith: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take you back to the start of the Session, when you correctly reminded Members about their obligations in relation to the new parliamentary boundaries? You told us:
“Those boundaries do not change until the next election, so we must obey the convention of not involving ourselves with another Member’s constituency until that time.” —[ Official Report, 6 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 2.]
I seek your advice. The neighbouring Labour MP, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter), has written to the Department for Communities and Local Government seeking the calling in of a planning application in my constituency. I was not informed of that involvement in my constituency.
Further, may I ask you whether it was proper for a Minister to write to that Member about the planning application—indeed, announcing that it was to be called in? That seems to me to be entirely contrary to the advice that you gave the House at the start of the Session.
Mr. Speaker: We all have to obey the conventions of the House and we have to remember that, while this is a parliamentary boundary proposal, it is up to the electorate as to whether we are returned as Members of Parliament after the general election. We are presuming too much when we say that we are going to be the Member of Parliament for somewhere.
First, I will deal with the question of the Minister. If a Member of Parliament writes in good faith to a Minister, or a Minister receives in good faith a letter from a Member of Parliament saying, “This is my constituency,” the Minister concerned could easily make a mistake and reply in good faith.
I do not want these disputes coming up in points of order. Everyone knows what a constituency boundary looks like. They get a map and look around it. They must say, “This is within my boundary or without.” I would add that, sometimes, there are circumstances in which an hon. Member could ask about a matter that is outwith his or her constituency. That could happen. The question could be about a hospital. In my own case, there might be a hospital in the city of Glasgow that is outwith my constituency, but I could ask a question about facilities, although health is a devolved matter.
I want to assist proceedings, but I do not want this dispute to go on.
Mr. Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Slaughter, you will understand that you have a boundary and you have a map. I tell you this: older Members of Parliament like me are very territorial. We do not like anybody getting our constituencies. You will need to be become territorial and stay within your constituency boundary.
Mr. Slaughter:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for that guidance. For the avoidance of doubt, the issue that has been raised
by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) affects my current and my prospective constituency to a great degree. It is simply a matter of regret that he and the Conservative council did not oppose this overdevelopment.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must point out that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush has been writing about the matter to individuals in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham. For it simply to be suggested that he has involved himself— [Interruption.] I am a recipient of the correspondence. It is an involvement that goes beyond that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to stop the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have told two hon. Members to get their act together and keep it out of this Chamber. The last thing I want is a Front Bencher making things awkward for the Speaker.
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that this is not about constituency boundaries.
Mr. Knight: No. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any indication that a ministerial statement might be made today? Ever since early this morning, well before the House started sitting, there have been reports on the news wires that the Secretary of State for Transport is to allocate £20 million to some local authorities to entice them to use electric vehicles. The report went on to say, “And he will be making a statement later.” One wonders to whom he is making the statement, because it appears that there is no provision for an oral statement to be made today.
Is not this something that you deplore, and that the House should rightly deplore, particularly as today we are dealing with transport business? The Secretary of State is on the Treasury Bench. All he has to do is walk a few feet to the Dispatch Box and tell us what this is all about.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication that a parliamentary statement will be made by any Minister.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that the Government have made a commitment to publish an impact assessment spelling out the costs, benefits and alternatives of any major measure, piece of legislation or change in policy before introducing it, so that the House can debate it in a fully informed manner.
Last week the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change announced in the House that he was raising the target for reducing carbon emissions from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent.—a one third increase. If that results in a corresponding increase in costs, it will increase the costs of the programme by some £70 billion. However, when I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him whether he intended to publish an impact assessment and if so, when, I received the reply that the Government did intend to publish such an assessment, but not until
after Royal Assent. That means that tomorrow, if things do not change, the House will discuss a measure not knowing to the nearest £70 billion what it will cost, or the corresponding change in benefits. I believe that that is an insult to the House and to our tax-paying constituents. Have you any powers, Mr. Speaker, either to require the Secretary of State to rush forward an impact assessment so that we know what we are debating, or to delay tomorrow’s debate until an assessment has been published so that we can debate it in a well-informed manner?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me some notice of his question. I have no powers to require such an assessment to be produced, but his comments will have been heard by Ministers.
Anne Main (St. Albans) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I think that the immigration Minister, who is no longer present, may have inadvertently misled the House just now when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) that he had written to my hon. Friend in great detail explaining why someone on a United Nations list of al-Qaeda terrorists had been given indefinite leave to remain. I have seen the letter, and apart from an apology for the long delay, there is no detail whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for ministerial replies, and I do not expect the hon. Lady to read the letter out during a point of order.
John Howell (Henley) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would tell me whether you have power to review the point of topical debates. Last Thursday’s debate, which was on the important subject of work and skills, was attended by only one Labour Back Bencher throughout. It is clear that Labour Back Benchers see no point in such debates.
Mr. Speaker: Those are matters for the Leader of the House, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise the issue with her. However, topical debates are usually very well attended. Back Benchers on both sides of the House usually want to speak in them, and have pleaded with me to ask Front Benchers to try to curtail opening speeches.
Orders of the Day
Local Transport Bill [ Lords]
[Relevant documents: The Ninth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2006-07, on the draft Local Transport Bill and the Transport Innovation Fund, HC 692, and the Government’s response, HC 1053.]
As amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
‘(1) After section 132B of the TA 2000 insert—
“132C Power of authorities to provide services in exceptional circumstances
(1) This section applies where a person who has agreed to provide a service (“the old service”) in accordance with a quality contract ceases to do so before the end of the period for which the contract was intended to have effect.
(2) The authority, or any one of the authorities, who entered into the quality contract may, in accordance with subsections (4) to (8) and section 132D, provide a local service (an “interim service”) in place of the old service or any part of it.
(3) Subsection (2) has effect notwithstanding any prohibition, restriction or limitation contained in any other enactment on the power of the authority to provide local services.
(4) An authority who provide an interim service of any description must hold a PSV operator’s licence to which no condition is attached under section 26 of the Transport Act 1985 (power of traffic commissioner to attach conditions to licence) prohibiting the authority from using vehicles under the licence to provide services of that description.
(5) Subsection (6) applies if—
(a) an authority provide an interim service in place of an old service or any part of an old service, and
(b) the authority or authorities who entered into the quality contract for the provision of the old service propose to enter into a quality contract for the provision of a replacement service in place of that service or (as the case may be) that part.
(6) The authority, or the authorities acting jointly, must invite tenders (in accordance with section 130) for the provision of the replacement service—
(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after the authority providing the interim service begin to do so, and
(b) in any event no later than three months after the date on which provision of the old service ceased.
(7) But subsection (6) does not apply if the authority, or the authorities acting jointly, decide to secure the provision of the replacement service under section 131 (circumstances in which quality contracts may be entered into without inviting tenders).
(8) The particulars of an interim service, or of a replacement service, need not be identical to the particulars of the old service, or that part of the old service, which it replaces.
“enactment” includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);
“interim service” has the meaning given by subsection (2);
“the old service” has the meaning given by subsection (1);
“replacement service” means a local service provided under a quality contract in place of an old service or any part of an old service.
132D Period for which interim service may be provided
(1) This section applies for the purpose of determining the period for which an authority may provide an interim service which is provided in place of—
(a) an old service (“the relevant service”), or
(b) part of an old service (“the relevant part”).
(2) If the authority do not, within the period of three months beginning with the date on which provision of the relevant service ceased,—
(a) enter into a quality contract to provide a replacement service in place of the relevant service or (as the case may be) the relevant part, or
(b) issue an invitation to tender in pursuance of section 132C(6),
the authority must not provide the interim service after the end of that period.
(3) If the authority enter into a quality contract to provide such a replacement service within the period mentioned in subsection (2), the authority must not provide the interim service after the earlier of the following dates—
(a) the date on which the replacement service is first provided;
(b) the date falling nine months after the date on which the interim service is first provided.
(4) If the authority issue invitations to tender in pursuance of section 132C(6) within the period mentioned in subsection (2) (but do not enter into a quality contract to provide such a replacement service within that period), the authority must not provide the interim service after the earlier of the following dates—
(a) the date on which a replacement service is first provided in place of the relevant service or (as the case may be) the relevant part;
(b) the date determined in accordance with subsection (5).
(a) the date falling nine months after the date on which the interim service is first provided;
(b) such date, not later than three months after the date mentioned in paragraph (a), as may be determined by the traffic commissioner on the application of the authority.
(6) The traffic commissioner may determine a date under subsection (5)(b) only if satisfied that there is a realistic prospect that, if the determination is made, a replacement service will be provided in place of the relevant service or (as the case may be) the relevant part on or before that date.
(7) An application under paragraph (b) of subsection (5) must be made—
(a) to the traffic commissioner for the traffic area in which the interim service is provided (or, if the service is provided in more than one such area, to the traffic commissioner for any of those areas), and
(b) not later than one month before the date mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.
(8) The authority must not make more than one application under subsection (5)(b) in respect of any interim service.
“interim service” and “replacement service” have the meaning given in section 132C;
“the relevant service” and “the relevant part” have the meaning given in subsection (1);
and, in any case where the authority entered into the quality contract for the provision of the relevant service jointly with one or more other authorities, references in this section to the authority entering into a quality contract for a replacement service, or issuing invitations to tender for such contracts, are references to those authorities acting jointly.”.
(2) In section 162(4) of the TA 2000 (provisions where references to Passenger Transport Authorities are to be read as references to Passenger Transport Executives) at the appropriate place insert—
(3) In section 66(1) of the TA 1985 (exclusion of powers of certain councils to run bus undertakings) after “subsection (2) below” insert “and to section 132C of the Transport Act 2000”.’.— [Paul Clark.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |