|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
That the draft CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
That the draft Health Protection (Part 2A Orders) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
That the draft Health Protection (Local Authority Powers) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Lone Parents) (Availability for Work) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
That the draft Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.
That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.-( Mr. Heppell.)
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9494/09 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2004/39/EC and 2009/.../EC, and No. 15162/09, Opinion of the European Central Bank of 16 October 2009 on a Draft Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2004/39/EC and 2009/.../EC; and endorses the Government's approach in seeking agreement to the Directive.- ( Mr. Heppell.)
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say Aye. [Hon. Members: "Aye."] Of the contrary, No. [Hon. Members: "No."] Under the Orders of the House relating to deferred Divisions, the Division is deferred until half past 12 o'clock on Wednesday next.
Mr. Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Ind): The organiser of this petition, Mr. Wayne Evans, has himself determinedly fought the effects of spinal cord injury. I am therefore very pleased to read the petition, which states:
The Petition of People of the London Borough of Croydon,
Declares that there is no provision within the NHS outpatient physiotherapy services of an ongoing exercise regime to improve overall health, fitness and wellbeing for persons with a spinal cord injury; further declares that the petitioners believe that, without such a regime, such persons will undoubtedly in the future require continuing NHS health care services as inpatients.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to ensure that such an
ongoing exercise regime is made available by the NHS outpatient physiotherapy services to all persons who have a spinal cord injury.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
The Petition of Residents of Watchet and others,
Declares that the footbridge at Watchet station is closed at present, because it is unsafe to use; declares that the closure is seriously inconvenient to residents and could endanger safety; further declares that there is a risk that the footbridge at Watchet station will be lost permanently, because insufficient funds are available for its safe repair and maintenance.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take steps to assist and encourage the West Somerset District Council to repair the footbridge as soon as possible.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
The Petition of the people of Ceredigion,
Declares that the Government should fulfil its responsibilities as a high contracting party to the 4th Geneva Convention.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to immediately take steps to institute a war crimes investigation in the UK into Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip between 27th December and 18th January 2009, and for the UK prosecuting authorities to search out and prosecute (or extradite for trial elsewhere) all suspected war criminals identified by the investigation; and urges the Government to seek a binding resolution at the UN Security Council to establish an international commission of inquiry into the Gaza attacks and the referral of potential cases to the International Criminal Court.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham) (Lab): I must admit that I find myself in a slightly strange position, in that the concerns that led me to seek this debate have actually been resolved. The case of the Beam Park West prison site demonstrates that sometimes in Parliament, one can be overtaken by fast-moving events.
I shall explain. I requested this Adjournment debate on 9 February and it was granted on 11 February. The idea was to present a reasoned, constructive contribution to the ongoing debate regarding the proposed Beam Park West prison, which was planned to be located in Dagenham, in my constituency. I also wanted, again in a rational way, to articulate some of the many concerns that had been raised with me locally and give a voice to local residents in a process that, like the siting of any proposed prison, has been difficult. I anticipated that the debate would give me a chance to lay out the responses that we had received to our local consultations on the plans, not least because the local authority consultation finished earlier this week.
However, on 12 February, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would not proceed with the proposed prison development, which accounts for the strange position that I find myself in this evening. I readily concede that the decision was not singularly driven by the agreement of the parliamentary authorities to this somewhat small, insignificant debate in the parliamentary calendar. However, as a politician I am quite prepared to take credit-even I realise that it is an unlikely turn of events, though. I doubt that my being awarded the debate was a determining factor in the process of public policy making in the MOJ.
Joking aside, the announcement on the 12th of this month somewhat alters the nature of my contribution. Instead, I now wish to take this opportunity to place on record, on behalf of many thousands of my constituents, my deep appreciation of and thanks to Ministers and officials for their open dialogue with us regarding the proposed project, over an arc of 10 months. I also wish to put on record my gratitude to local people for their thoughtful and constructive contributions throughout the discussion, despite blatant and cynical electioneering by another political party-not necessarily the Opposition. Finally, I shall raise a number of points on the process and the future of the Beam Park West site.
It would be useful at the beginning briefly to review the cycle of events regarding the proposed prison development. On 27 April 2009, the Ministry of Justice announced Beam Park West as the designated site for a 1,500-inmate, category B prison, the rationale being the projected prison expansion to 96,000 inmates by 2014 and the need for extra capacity. The Government announced the need for five new prisons, or 7,500 places, alongside the closure of 5,000 inefficient places. On Monday this week, the Justice Secretary returned to that subject when discussing prisoner early release schemes. The current prison population stands at some 83,800, which is up from 60,300 in 1997. We now have well over 86,000 places in terms of operational capacity. He reiterated this week that the plans for 2014 are on track given the capacity building programme.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|