here - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1673 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy) 6 JUNE 2013 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy) 1674 Mr Prisk: As I said in my opening remarks, we want to ensure that the guidance, as part of the balancing of the new planning policy framework, shows a clear understanding of the issue, especially the cumulative impact, and that that is reflected in the policies in the local plan. Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): I congratulate the Minister on today’s statement and associate myself with those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on the leadership he has shown on this issue. I would like some clarity if possible from the Minister about the position as it affects Wales. Applications for large wind farms over 50 MW are not devolved to the Welsh Government. It seems logical that the new provisions should apply to those applications, so can he reassure me that that is the case? Mr Prisk: As I think you will know, Mr Speaker, the process relates to England only. There is a sensitive legal issue, to which my hon. Friend refers, but I understand that the Secretary of State for Wales is attuned to that and is in contact with the Welsh Government. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Does the Minister agree that today is a victory for the Conservative party, which has finally brought some sanity and good sense to a very dubious energy policy? Mr Prisk: The sad part about this has been that the Labour party seems not to have any understanding of why local voices matter. Members of this House have raised local issues time and again, and I agree with my hon. Friend; this is about localism and giving power back to local people, and we will ensure that that happens. Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): The Minister’s announcement will be widely welcomed by my constituents, particularly those in Humberston who are fighting an application in the neighbouring constituency. With particular reference to pre-application consultation, and because of the widespread impact such turbines have, can he assure me that a consultation area will cover neighbouring council areas so that everyone can be involved? Mr Prisk: It is important that a wide range of local voices are involved, but clearly those matters and where the boundaries must lie in any individual application are a matter not for central Government but for local government. Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): People in my part of North Yorkshire will be thrilled with the announcement this morning. May I add my gratitude to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), for championing these changes? Will the Minister assure the House that local councils will be given the correct level of support to implement the changes? They often come up against very clever and expensive lawyers from development companies and need far better support. Mr Prisk: We will write to all local planning authorities and to Sir Michael Pitt at the Planning Inspectorate. I take my hon. Friend’s point and I know that the issue is foremost in the mind of the Secretary of State. May I add my strong congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)? We have listened and we have improved the guidance for the better. Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): The Minister mentioned specifically that meeting our energy goals should not mean overriding natural environment considerations. Will he confirm that he will include in his amendment to the legislation the higher planning authorities that will make judgments about equally ugly pylons and the need to underground electricity transmission lines across the beautiful Somerset levels? Mr Prisk: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. Today, clearly, we are considering the question of onshore wind turbines, so I think it would be wiser if I did not draw myself into the even more vexed question of pylons. I know that the Secretary of State and I will consider her question should it have any due implications.
1675 6 JUNE 2013 Business of the House 1676 Business of the House 11.4 am Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week? The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley): The business for next week is as follows: MONDAY 10 JUNE—Second Reading of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. TUESDAY 11 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Children and Families Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to section 10 of the European Union Act 2011. WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE—Opposition day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced. THURSDAY 13 JUNE—Debate on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the Prime Minister of Canada will address both Houses of Parliament on this day. The provisional business for the week commencing 17 June will include: MONDAY 17 JUNE—Second Reading of the Pensions Bill. TUESDAY 18 JUNE—Motion to approve a European document relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to enhanced co-operation and a financial transaction tax, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the European elections 2014. WEDNESDAY 19 JUNE—Opposition day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced. THURSDAY 20 JUNE—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 June will be: THURSDAY 13 JUNE—Debate on the seventh report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee on dog control and welfare. Ms Eagle: This week marks the 100th anniversary of the death of suffragette Emily Wilding Davison, who threw herself at the King’s horse demanding votes for women. As the battle for women’s suffrage raged, she was at its forefront, being imprisoned on multiple occasions and force fed 49 times. She has a connection with this place because she hid in St Mary’s Undercroft so that she could register as a resident here for the 1911 census. She is also known for throwing things at Chancellor Lloyd George. Since women won the vote, just 35 have entered the Cabinet and today we make up only 23% of the House of Commons. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that, on this centenary, we should have a debate in Government time on women’s progress in the UK? Under this Government, women’s rights are going backwards: as carers, service users and public sector workers, women are bearing the brunt of Government cuts and women’s unemployment is the highest it has been for a generation. No wonder the Government forgot to do a gender impact assessment of their first Budget. I suggest that if Emily Wilding Davison were alive today, she would still find reasons to throw rocks at the Chancellor. I wonder whether the Leader of the House recalls last October’s Back-Bench business debate on the badger cull. The vote at the end of that debate instructed the Government not to proceed with the cull, but the Government just ignored it and started anyway. The Government have lost Back-Bench votes on circus animals, badgers and the Royal Fusiliers, and since starting to lose votes on Back-Bench motions so frequently, they have simply stopped opposing them. Today, we have a motion on the effects of pesticides on the bee population. Will the Leader of the House let us know whether the Government intend simply to let the motion pass without a vote, and if they do, will the will of the House be ignored again? The Commons is abuzz with speculation about the end of the greatest No. 10 love affair of all time. Their eyes met at a press conference in the garden and they accepted each other with open arms, but the Prime Minister was unfaithful with his Back-Bench EU deal and now the Deputy Prime Minister has gone to the papers over his child care demands. They have been kidding themselves for a while, but the Queen’s Speech showed us that they did not even have the energy to try any more. Their mouse of a legislative programme has already unravelled, with No. 10 at panic stations over another lobbying scandal, the EU Back-Bench Bill, and the third U-turn of the Session in the abandonment of the appalling plan to increase ratios for child care providers. It is hard to believe that the House has sat for only 11 days since the Queen’s Speech was unveiled. It is the job of the Leader of the House to co-ordinate the Government’s legislative programme. I know he likes expensive top-down reorganisations, but this is ridiculous. To be fair to him, though, it is not as if his Cabinet colleagues are faring any better. The Education Secretary has been so busy positioning himself to be the next Tory leader that he has forgotten to do the day job. According to a damning report from the Procedure Committee, his Department is very late in answering half of all written questions tabled by Members, and answers only one in five written named day questions in time. During the recess the chairman of the Tory party was told off by the UK Statistics Authority for making things up. He joins a long list of his Cabinet colleagues languishing on the statistical naughty step, including the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary. So may we have a debate about sanctions that could be applied to Ministers who do not answer questions in a timely fashion or get censured for misusing statistics? Perhaps we should also have a debate about performance-managing the Cabinet. Such a debate could start with a look at the NHS. Since 2010 the number of people waiting in A and E for more than four hours has doubled. The ambulance queues have doubled, but instead of taking responsibility, the Government have tried to blame immigrants, women doctors and a 10-year-old GP contract for a problem that has only just emerged. Of course, they are only following the Chancellor’s lead after he blamed the flatlining economy on the snow, the rain and various bank holidays, including the royal
Page 1 and 2: Thursday Volume 563 6 June 2013 No.
Page 3 and 4: 1643 6 JUNE 2013 1644 House of Comm
Page 5 and 6: 1647 Oral Answers 6 JUNE 2013 Oral
Page 13 and 14: 1663 6 JUNE 2013 Onshore Wind (Plan
Page 15 and 16: 1667 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy)
Page 17: 1671 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy)
Page 21 and 22: 1679 Business of the House 6 JUNE 2
Page 29 and 30: 1695 Mau Mau Claims (Settlement) 6
Page 31 and 32: 1699 Mau Mau Claims (Settlement) 6
Page 33 and 34: 1703 Public Administration Committe
Page 35 and 36: 1707 6 JUNE 2013 Student Visas 1708
Page 37 and 38: 1711 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
Page 55 and 56: 1747 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
Page 69 and 70:
1775 Augmentative and Alternative 6
Page 71:
1779 Augmentative and Alternative 6
Page 74 and 75:
267WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 268WH
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 89 and 90:
109WS Written Ministerial Statement
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95:
Page 98 and 99:
1223W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137:
Page 140 and 141:
Col. No. EDUCATION.................
Page 142 and 143:
Members who wish to have the Daily
show all

here - United Kingdom Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?