What about the concerns
regarding Council Tax increases?
Many constituents have contacted me
expressing concerns about the rise in council
tax. I recognise the strength of feeling
and concern about future rises.
Whilst I appreciate the level of concern,
local people, councils and government all
need to engage constructively in how to
address this problem. I don’t believe
there is one clear solution, but would like
to outline my views and what the government
has done so far and how it will improve
the current situation.
As you may know, local government receives
funding through two means. Council tax is
not the main source of funding. Across the
country as a whole around three quarters
of the funding of local government comes
from central government grants and redistributed
business rates. In terms of direct grants
from government, south Dorset has not done
especially well in the past. However, this
government has reformed the system to make
it fairer, simpler and more transparent.
Since 1997 Labour has increased grants to
local government by 25% in real terms. This
compares with a 7% cut in the last four
years under the Conservatives. This year
all authorities received an above inflation
increase in government grant for the second
year running. An additional £340m
of Revenue Support Grant for this year was
allocated by the Chancellor in his Pre-Budget
report in December.
Despite this extra funding the government
accepts that it needs to rethink the way
local funding is raised. Consequently, the
government is carrying out a ‘Balance
of Funding’ review which will consider
some options for reform. We are expecting
government to report on this in July. The
review is about who should raise the money
– local or central government –
and through what kind of taxes. This Review
is genuinely important - it is the most
significant examination of the financing
of local government for 25 years.
The Labour government has also introduced
reforms to increase the role of local government
and to give councils more flexibility. Specifically,
the Local Government Act (2003) makes provision
for councils to reduce discounts on council
tax for second homes. Many people living
in areas with a significant proportion of
second homes, like south Dorset, feel angry
that second home owners only contribute
half the amount of other residents to local
services. That is why the government has
given district councils a new freedom to
reduce the current 50% council tax on second
homes to 10%.
The local media is leading discussions
on asking who’s to blame. I don’t
think this is particularly helpful. This
government has increase funding to local
government more than any other administration,
but clearly more reforms are needed. Ultimately
however, council tax is set by local councils,
not by central government. Councils are
and should remain responsible for how they
deliver services to their residents and
what council tax bills they levy.
Dorset County Council has proposed cuts
that will affect the most vulnerable in
our community. Despite being an excellent
rated authority, some of their suggestions
on where to make cuts were of concern.
There has been an understandable outcry
over possible closures of libraries and
outdoor education centres. It now appears
that the Council will not need to make these
cuts because it under estimated the extra
revenue raised by increasing council tax
on second homes. I am pleased that, following
the government allowing councils to increase
tax on second homeowners, unacceptable cuts
are not necessary. But, given that this
has been most predictable, I can only conclude
that councillors used the threat of unpalatable
cuts to make political points against the
government.
Finally, I have always supported a more
income related approach, as I am not convinced
that the property based system is the fairest
method. However, it is also worth noting
that an income-based system will bring winners
and losers too. For example, if you raise
council tax through a national income tax
you are shifting power back to central government.
If a locally based taxation applies, then,
what will happen in poorer communities where
people are on low wages—will local
councils be able to raise enough revenue
for services that are in high demand? A
local income tax would also increase the
burden on working families — the taxpayers
— because fewer would be paying for
local services.
I hope the outcome of the Review brings
forward long term solutions to this increasing
problems. In the meantime, councils should
not use the current debates to avoid their
responsibility of managing their budgets
effectively.
What are the developments
with legislation in regard to fireworks?
I know many communities feel under siege
around bonfire night each year as the misuse
of fireworks escalates. This is a form of
anti-social behaviour and must be taken
seriously.
The new Fireworks Act should help local
councils and the police crack down on the
problem. This legislation will set a maximum
noise limit for fireworks, make retailers
selling fireworks have a licence and bans
the use of fireworks during anti-social
hours. The Act will also prohibit the supply
of air bombs and will make it an offence
for minors to be in possession of fireworks.
Unfortunately these new laws will not apply
this year, but implementation of the anti-social
elements of this legislation should happen
before Christmas.
The government has also secured agreement
from the firework industry that fireworks
would only be sold in the three weeks before
5 November, for a few days afterwards and
for a similar period over the New Year.
Finally, although some people have asked
for an outright ban on the sale of fireworks
to the public, the government believes that
this option is unworkable, leading to a
black market and maybe encouraging people
to make home-made fireworks.
Given the reopening of the debate about
whether we should have gone to war in Iraq
I think it would be useful if I offered
you my reflections.
I still believe the decision to go to war
was the right one. Clearly the deaths of
between 5,000 and 10,000 civilians plus
members of the armed forces weigh heavily,
but three important positives remain.
Firstly, Iraq is a much better place. I
have heard this first hand from many who
live in Iraq or have visited recently. All
the schools and hospitals are functioning.
Electricity was back to pre-war levels by
1 September and over a thousand Iraqi refugees
have now returned to Iraq, after years in
exile. Over 45,000 Iraqi police are now
on duty and nearly all 400 courts are functioning.
For the first time in over a generation
the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
We have spent all the oil revenues on Iraq
– even importing the fuel to run the
coalition’s vehicles and equipment.
As a result of all of this, opinion polls
regularly show over 80% of Iraqis supporting
the liberation and the work of the coalition
to build democracy.
Secondly, the war removed a serious threat.
As a result we now have a much greater chance
to improve world security.
Iran had the most to fear from Iraq following
the war in the 80’s costing one million
lives, including 20,000 Iranians killed
by mustard gas. With Saddam gone they have
responded positively to the initiative from
the UK, France and Germany for them to give
up their nuclear programme. The UN team
have been surprised at how advanced they
were, but are making good progress.
Libya has given up their programme. As
a result they have released details of how
they acquired their nuclear technology.
This has allowed Pakistan to be identified
as the major source of nuclear proliferation
in the world. North Korea is the main proliferator
of missile technology. Having seen the determination
of the US to deal with the problem and the
market for illegal missiles in the Middle
East disappear, they are now in productive
talks.
I am convinced that without taking action
against Saddam we would not have been able
to make this degree of progress. Whilst
terrorist activity in Iraq remains a serious
concern, it is worth remembering that it
is these regimes that are instrumental in
supporting terrorist activity. Terrorists
need funding, communications and training.
Saddam’s regime provided this. With
the removal of Saddam, terrorists have one
less substantial resource available to them.
Thirdly, Iraq’s threat from WMD was
credible. There was clear evidence that
Iraq had WMD and that Saddam would continue
to develop them at any given opportunity.
David Kay, the former Head of the Iraq
Survey Group, is the intelligence and weapons
expert that has led the search in Iraq of
WMD for the last six months. He has had
access to all of the intelligence, all of
the interviews with Iraqi prisoners, all
of the documents, and all of the inspections.
His team has discovered hundreds of cases,
based on both physical evidence and the
testimony of Iraqis, of activities that
were prohibited under the initial UN Resolution
687 and that should have been reported under
1441.
He said in evidence to the Senate Armed
Services Committee last month, “prior
to the war my view was that the best evidence
I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons
of mass destruction….I think that you
will have, when you get the final ISG report,
pretty compelling evidence that Saddam had
the intention of continuing the pursuit
of WMD when the opportunity arose and the
first start on that, the long pole in the
tent, was this restart of the long-range
weapons program.”
Having seen the intelligence, the Intelligence
and Security Committee, which is made up
of 9 MPs, unanimously agreed that: “Iraq
had active chemical, biological and nuclear
programmes and the capability to produce
chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was
also continuing to develop ballistic missiles”.
And on the day before he died, Dr. David
Kelly said of the infamous September dossier,
in evidence to the Intelligence and Security
Committee, “I think it is an accurate
document, I think it is a fair reflection
of the intelligence that was available and
it's presented in a very sober and factual
way.”
If Saddam had been allowed to continue
in power, having frustrated the inspections,
and whilst in breach of 1441, he and other
dictators would have believed it possible
to get away with ignoring the international
community. David Kay does not believe that
inspectors would have found what the Iraq
Survey Group has discovered because the
Iraqis were never going to co-operate. It
was therefore pointless to allow Blix to
continue his work.
Finally, on the 45 minute claim, the September
dossier was not written as a justification
for war. As Tony Blair said at the time,
it was written to justify taking action
through the UN. It was not mentioned in
the March debate that culminated in the
vote to go to war. In fact, the 45 minute
claim was a media-led campaign, first run
by the Evening Standard, and only took on
significance after the war when Andrew Gilligan
made his infamous report on the Today Programme.
It is difficult for any of us, when discussing
these issues, to be objective. The decision
to go to war was a momentous one and most
people’s interpretation of events since
then has inevitably been informed by the
view they had on whether or not war was
justified. That is why a judicial inquiry
into the death of Dr. Kelly was important.
This meant it was public and genuinely independent.
That was the universal view when Lord Hutton
began his work.
I fully support Lord Hutton’s conclusions
and am frustrated by those who have discounted
his work because they disagree with the
findings. However, I accept my own subjectivity
and that others believe he interpreted his
brief too tightly. Nevertheless, I do not
accept that a further public inquiry will
serve any useful function. With such division
over the decision to go to war, I don’t
think that the conclusions of any such inquiry
will be accepted by all sides.
I hope this helps you understand my views
on this important subject.
As you are aware Parliament voted on
the Higher Education Bill in late February
when the Bill received its Second Reading
in the House of Commons. Whilst I recognise
some of the concerns expressed by constituents,
I support the government’s proposals
and would like to explain my reasons for
this.
The basis for introducing a Bill on higher
education reform is a direct response to
the increasing financial problems facing
our Universities. Without properly resourced
higher education establishments, the UK
will not be able to compete and our economy
will suffer. Currently, 43% of young people
enter higher education. As lower skilled
jobs are exported to countries such as China
and India, we need to allow increased access
to higher education to raise skill and therefore
the country’s international competitive
advantage. The government, therefore, had
to explore how to increase funding to Universities.
This can be done through the tax system
or by increasing the contribution from university
graduates.
Already the taxpayer funds 90% of the costs
of university education. Universities also
receive the largest government funding per
head compared with other education sectors
– preschool, primary, secondary and
further education. I would rather see extra
taxpayers’ money being put in at primary
and secondary level, which is where a real
difference can be made to a child’s
development. Furthermore, university graduates
on average earn substantially more than
those who have not attended University.
I believe these facts give weight to the
proposal of increasing the contribution
from graduates. The government is asking
for a graduate contribution of £1
for every £14 that the taxpayer contributes.
The Labour government wants to increase
the number of people entering higher education,
but more importantly has a commitment to
attracting more young people from poorer
backgrounds to University. The abolition
of upfront tuition fees will achieve this.
Now a young person with the ability of going
to University does no not have to worry
about how they are going to raise over £1,000
each year they are studying. Instead, the
new proposals shift the burden onto graduates.
This means students can go to University,get
their degree, get a good job and only then
have to think about paying for their education.
In addition, £3,000 of non-repayable
support will be available including a fee
remission grant of £1,200 a year,
an up-front grant of £1,500 a year
and bursaries to cover remaining costs.
Cambridge and Exeter have already announced
their intention of offering bursaries of
up to £4,000. These proposals mean
students from poorer backgrounds can get
access to more up-front cash and they will
have greater choice on how they use the
money they get.
For both fees and maintenance loans, new
proposals mean that only once you have graduated
and earning over £15,000, will repayments
begin. The amount students can borrow will
rise to meet the average basic living costs.
Repayments will be linked to graduates’
wages when they earn over £15,000,
paid through the tax system. So a graduate
earning £18,000 would pay around £5.00
a week. I do not think that is an unreasonable
contribution. Graduates on £18,000
are currently repaying student debt at £13.85
a week. On the issue of variable fees, there
is already a market in university education.
Young people choose whether to go to this
or that University according to all sorts
of financial decisions - whether they can
study from home (which is cheaper), how
far the University is from home - as well
as academic ones (the nature of the course,
the kind of campus, the tutors etc). It
would be wrong for all the students at the
University of Glamorgan to have to pay £2,500
(the flat rate being suggested by those
opposed to variable fees) when their course
could be provided more cheaply than say
another course at Cambridge.
The Access Regulator will monitor the setting
of fees by Universities, who will have to
demonstrate that they are providing the
appropriate support for capable students
from less well-off backgrounds. The proposals
allow fees to fall as well as rise. Currently
all courses charge £1,150. Some Universities,
such as LSE, have said they will not change
any fees. It is also worth noting that part-time
students, FE students and mature students
have always paid variable fees. What is
good for trainee hairdressers and bricklayers
should be good for management consultants
and merchant bankers.
So, these proposals, which will not come
into force until 2005, will generate the
funding that Universities desperately need
but will also provide a substantial package
of support for poorer students. The level
of fees set by Universities will be regulated
and the student loan reforms mean that graduates
make payments only when they earn enough
and the amount they pay back each week is
based on income. At the moment graduates
pay back the same amount regardless of how
much they earn.
These reforms are necessary and important.
They will redistribute money from richer
Universities to poorer ones. They will extend
opportunity to our more disadvantaged citizens.
On that basis they are completely in accord
with my values and those of the Labour Party.
I hope you agree.
What can be done about
the difficulties with digital television
access in Dorset?
I recognise the problem we face in South
Dorset with regard to access to digital
television - and have campaigned government
to address the lack of access in rural areas.
Background
Planning a DTT transmitter network is quite
complicated. No additional frequency spectrum
has been allocated to DTT services. Therefore,
the BBC and Independent Television Commission
(ITC), who are primarily responsible for
the technical work have had to undertake
the extremely difficult task of interspersing
DTT plans between existing national and
international analogue transmissions. In
particular, it has been necessary to impose
restrictions, for example on the power of
transmissions, to protect existing analogue
services against interference from DTT.
The planning process has been especially
difficult in some parts of the UK, where
there is already a high concentration of
analogue relays and, consequently, spectrum
is particularly scarce.
The launch phase for DTT, therefore, concentrates
on the main transmitter sites and on the
larger relays which have been identified
as those able to deliver the maximum coverage
across the UK. The BBC and ITC are now considering,
in consultation with the digital broadcasters,
manufacturers, consumer group and government,
how to improve the core coverage of all
digital terrestrial multiplexes from those
transmitters. No decisions have yet been
taken over the addition of further relays
to the current digital plan.
Digital Television Action Plan
A Digital Television Action Plan was issued
on 20 December 2001, jointly by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and
the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
which sets out a series of actions to be
undertaken by government and industry to
promote digital television and to prepare
for switchover. A copy of the Plan can be
found online at www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.
The provision of digital television services
to all areas of the UK, is an important
element of planning for switchover. As part
of the Digital TV Action Plan, government
and industry are considering the extension
of DTT coverage.
Consultation
DCMS and DTI commenced a consultation on
11 December 2001, inviting views on the
basis on which the government should plan
the use of spectrum for DTT, including the
level of terrestrial coverage required across
the UK for public service broadcasting and
for pay-tv services. The consultation closed
on 5 April 2002. A copy of the Spectrum
Planning document can be found on the website:
www.digitaltelvision.gov.uk. The website
also contains many of the responses received.
Channel 5
It was clear at its inception that there
were certain areas in the UK which would
not be able to receive the fifth channel
due to a lack of available analogue frequency
which could be radiated at sufficient power
without causing interference to existing
services. Despite this, it was determined
that an additional channel for the majority
of the population was worth providing. About
80% of the UK population can receive analogue
terrestrial Channel 5 services.
With the development of digital technology,
the provision of digital terrestrial television
has been given a higher priority than the
potential extension of analogue coverage,
in terms of the prospective use of those
scarce broadcast frequencies that remain
unused. However, Channel 5 services are
available free-to-view via digital satellite
along with a full range of other free-to-view
services—including ITV1.
Terrestrial Analogue Broadcasting
The government is committed to ensuring
that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals
are maintained until everyone who can currently
get the main public service broadcasting
channels in analogue form (BBC 1 and 2,
ITV, Channel 4/S4C and Channel 5) can receive
them on digital systems.
Affordability
Switching to digital is an affordable option
for the vast majority of people; and as
a target indicator of affordability, 95%
of consumers have access to digital equipment.
Digital Switchover Timetable
When the government first announced these
criteria in September 1999, it said that
digital switchover could start to happen
as early as 2006 and be completed by 2010.
Withdrawal of Solus Cards
Whilst the government has been successful
in bringing digital services to several
areas of the UK, rural areas such as south
Dorset are still not able to receive DTT
without subscribing to Sky. Because of this
situation some people opted to purchase
the Sky box and take advantage of the Sky
Freeview Card (Solus Cards) that have been
administered by the BBC and which deliver
the free-to-air channels.
Reception for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel
5 was thanks to the BBC paying Sky for Solus
viewing cards, which enabled non pay-tv
customers to view BBC digital through the
Sky box. Because the other channels such
as ITV were not filtered out, they were
available by virtue of the Solus Card. Consequently,
the end of the BBC agreement means that
the ITV channels will no longer be available
unless someone else funds the Solus Card
or a new agreement is reached.
Solus Card Resolution
Following representation from several MPs,
including myself, the Secretary of State,
Tessa Jowell, contacted the relevant broadcasters
to encourage a solution. A resolution has
now been found. Essentially, the agreement
will allow existing Solus Card users to
purchase a new card for a one-off purchase
cost of £20 (plus VAT). These cards
are guaranteed until December 2005. BSkyB
is not expected to disable existing cards
until the new scheme is up and running and
customers will be given time to order and
receive new cards.
I will continue to monitor the situation
carefully.
What can you tell us
about direct payments and the future of
Post Offices?
At present there are two key developments
within the Post Office system. The Government
is carrying out a programme of modernisation
of the Urban Post Office Network, to ensure
bigger, better Post Offices delivering the
services that people need and where they
want them. In addition, from this April,
the Government will start to pay benefits,
pensions and tax credits directly into bank
and building society accounts including
the Post Office Card Account. This has caused
concern amongst local people and especially
pensioners. I would like to explain the
reasoning behind this change and provide
detailed information on how you may be affected.
The Government believe that Direct Payments
(for benefits, tax credits and pensions)
will help create a modern service for the
future. Direct payment of benefits to accounts
is already happening. Nearly half of benefit
recipients already choose to have their
benefits paid this way. Last year nearly
a million people opted to have benefits
paid directly into bank accounts.
The Government makes 5 key points in support
of the move to direct payments. These are
as follows –
1. Financial inclusion – direct payment
will increase the number of people with
access to bank accounts and the convenience
and benefit that brings.
2. Tackles crime and fraud – Over 100
pensioners each week have their order books
stolen. The new system will be more secure
as a PIN number will be required to access
money. It also means that customers don’t
have to take all their money in one go and
can just get to the cash they need.
3. Saves taxpayers money – The old
paper based system of Giros and order books
was very expensive to operate.
4. Extends customer choice – people
will have more choice about when and where
they collect their money. There will be
a range of accounts that people can access
through the Post Office including the new
Post Office Card Account. Where they wish,
people will still be able to get their money
weekly over the counter at the Post Office.
5. Securing the future of the Post Office.
Without reform and sufficient Government
support, the Post Office has an uncertain
future, with declining numbers of customers
and branch closures
.
I would also like to dispel several myths
about the implementation of direct payments.
Firstly, there will be a gradual migration
towards direct payments. This process will
take up to two years. Each existing customer
will receive a letter over the course of
the next two years, with clear advice on
what do to.
Secondly, the new Post Office Card Account
is both simple and secure. All the customer
will need to do is remember a PIN number.
Apart from that they can get their money
out just as they do at the moment –
weekly and in cash from the Post Office.
No one will be pressurised to open a bank
account and customers will have the opportunity
to discuss all the options with an advisor.
Thirdly, despite wide speculation, the Government
does not have a cap on the number of people
that can open a Card Account. There will
be no limit. What the Government did do
is make a working speculation that roughly
3 million people will open an account. A
Parliamentary Question on this specific
issue is enclosed for your information.
The Government will dispatch information
to customers, when they need it so that
they can choose the account option which
best meets their needs and circumstances.
Post Office branches also have official
leaflets to hand out to customers. All of
this material sets out the procedures for
opening a Post Office Card Account. Unfortunately
some sub-postmasters have produced their
own publicity material that has misled and
confused customers, including a number of
pensioners. The Government is working with
the Post Office to ensure that this practice
stops and that vulnerable customers are
not confused.
Finally I would like to stress that this
move is designed to sustain the Post Office
service. I believe it is vital for small
rural communities to have access to local
facilities. The Government is protecting
the rural network and has made a firm commitment
to prevent rural closures. £450 million
has been made available so that services
in rural areas can continue, where they
could not otherwise be sustained on a commercial
basis.
I am concerned that we retain a substantial
post office network. That is why I met with
the Dorset Association of Sub-Postmasters
and Mistresses last year and then raised
their concerns with the minister, Stephen
Timms MP, in private meetings.
What can you tell us
about elderly care provision?
The government is committed to improving
access to health and social care services
for older people. Between 1995 and 2025
the number of people aged 80 and over in
the United Kingdom will increase from 2.3
million to 3.5 million; and the number of
people aged 90 and over will almost double.
Considering this, one of the government’s
biggest challenges is meeting the needs
of the elderly population.
Examples of what the government has done
so far include, enhanced cataract services;
free NHS sight-tests; free influenza immunisation;
immediate access to information and advice
through NHS Direct; the National Service
framework for Older People; and guidance
on eligibility for adult social care "Fair
Access to Care Services".
In terms of improving services, the NSF
for Older People tackles age discrimination,
raises standards and reduces inconsistency
in the health and social care of older people
in England. Secondly, the NHS plan, published
in July 2000, included the government's
plans for intermediate care and its response
to the recommendations of the Royal Commission
on the funding of long-term care. The Health
and Social Care Act 2001 includes provisions
to make the necessary changes to the current
system for funding long-term care. These
include NHS-funded nursing care in all settings,
including nursing homes.
As a result of the spending review for
2002, resources for social services have
been increased on average by 6 per cent
per annum in real terms over the three years
beginning April 2003. The overall package
announced by the Secretary of State for
Health on 23 July 2002 comes to £1
billion over the period 2003 to 2006. Two-thirds
of the £1 billion is ring-fenced for
specific older people's services.
Finally, the government is committed to
local health and social care services planning
and working more closely together in respect
of older people's services. It is important
for agencies to be clear in their respective
responsibilities. Guidance on continuing
health care, and regulations that permit
health and social care services to pool
resources or otherwise jointly commission
or provide services, will help localities
deliver integrated care.
There is great concern about not only
British citizens, but EU citizens and all
people who are held in Guantanamo Bay in
conditions that seem to defy the Geneva
Convention and international norms.
The UK Government has been pressing the
US to move forward with the process of determining
the detainees’ future and shall continue
to do so. The detentions cannot be allowed
to drag on indefinitely.
As you may be aware, recently the Foreign
Office Minister Chris Mullin stated that
the UK had strong reservations about US
plans to use military tribunals to try the
two British men and asserted that the UK
government expects the process to meet internationally
accepted standards of a fair trial. The
government will continue to follow the process
very carefully.
Furthermore, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
raised the concerns over the treatment of
Mr. Begg and Mr. Abbasi when he spoke with
US Secretary of State Colin Powell over
the weekend. Mr. Straw and Home Secretary
David Blunkett have made it clear to the
US authorities that the UK government does
not support capital punishment and that
the two men should face a fair trial here
under UK law. The US government has since
confirmed that the two UK citizens will
not face the death penalty.
Many people have contacted me about the
possible commercialisation of GM crops and
in particular how this would affect consumer
choice. I, too, am concerned about the current
position from government. As a result of
these concerns, I have spoken directly with
Margaret Beckett’s office and understand
that a detailed statement will be made in
the House of Commons in the coming few weeks.
I will post further comments on this site
following this announcement.
What is the Government's
progress on eradicating Third World debt?
As you may know, the government’s
action towards eradicating Third World debt
has been focused most recently on the 41
heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs).
The HIPC initiative was expanded to include
22 of these countries on 22 December 2000,
which led to the IMF and World Bank cutting
£23bn of debt. HIPC has also reduced
annual debt servicing for 26 countries by
an average of 40%.
The government’s progress on debt
cancellation was sumarised by Clare Short,
the then Secretary of State for International
Development:
While it is essential to deal with the
problem of unsustainable debt in the poorest
countries as part of our efforts to assist
in eradicating poverty, complete cancellation
of debt is not required; nor is it the most
effective means of delivering aid resources
to reduce poverty. We do not support the
proposal for 100 per cent cancellation of
IMF and World Bank loans, which is neither
desirable nor equitable for these institutions
to provide 100 per cent relief would risk
skewing limited development resources away
from other very poor countries, which have
handled their debt well. Countries need
to borrow — initially only on very
concessional terms — to finance their
poverty reduction strategies. In this way,
they can re-establish their credit worthiness,
which will also help them attract private
investment and accelerate economic growth
and poverty reduction.
However, the government has responded positively
to the Jubilee 2000 campaign. At the Jubilee
2000 final event, the Chancellor said that
the UK would renounce the right to receive
any benefit from the historic debt owed
by all 41 most indebted countries. In no
way has the Third World debt escaped the
attention of the government; the April 2003
Budget report said, “The 2002 Spending
Review committed the largest ever increase
in UK aid, raising aid to developing countries
from .32 per cent of national income in
2003-03 to .4 per cent by 2005-06. This
represents a near doubling of aid resources
in real terms since 1997.” At the 2002
G8 Summit in Kananaskis, ministers have
also agreed to fund the short fall in the
HIPC initiative up to US$1 billion.
All of these actions represent a deep and
continued commitment to ending Third World
debt and I am confident that this government
will continue to increase support to the
poorest countries as a priority.
I have been contacted by many constituents
about the High Hedges Bill, and I would
like to update you on the current situation.
My colleague, Steven Pound MP, was drawn
in the annual ballot for Private Members
Bills last autumn and decided to take up
the High Hedges Bill. The bill had cross
party support and should have been successful.
The first reading on the floor of the House
was a formality and it then moved on to
the Second Reading. Although welcomed by
all sides of the House there were some objections
made by one Member, Christopher Chope, the
MP for Christchurch. He spoke against the
bill at length and it nearly fell at the
Second Reading. However, the bill passed
through this reading and also the Committee
stage, returning to the House for its Third
Reading on the 20th June. This time Christopher
Chope MP was successful in talking the bill
out of time. He stated that the bill to
give householders the right to – after
mediation and an objective analysis by the
local council – require their neighbours’
hedges to be reduced to a maximum height
of two meters was, “a greater threat
to this green and pleasant land than Dutch
Elm disease, the Great Storm and the Luftwaffe.”
It is very disappointing that one MP can
ruin such an important bill and it is particularly
disappointing since the MP in question is
a senior member, sits on the front bench
and represents a Dorset seat. I now hope
that it will come back as a Government Bill
in the new session. I will certainly use
my best offices to persuade government that
this course of action is needed and will
keep you up-to-date on any new developments.
Mr Pound raised the matter again at Prime
Minister's Questions on the 17th September;
I quote below his question and the Prime
Minister's reply.
Q14. [130450] Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing,
North):
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You will
be aware that the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill
died a "mute, inglorious" death
a few weeks ago on the Floor of this very
Chamber. This Bill, which was piloted with
great skill, ability and intelligence through
the upper House by my colleague, Baroness
Gardner of Parkes, and (talked out) by a
rather less distinguished parliamentarian
in this House, deserves a second chance.
Will my right hon. Friend give the High
Hedges (No. 2) Bill the chance to rise again—even
though that will cause some pain to the
hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)?
The Prime Minister: Well, it says - I understand
the disappointment of my hon. Friend that
his Bill did not make better progress, but
the Government have had a long-standing
commitment since August 2000 to bring forward
new laws to give local authorities in England
and Wales powers to determine complaints
about high garden hedges and will make every
effort to get them on to the statute book
at the earliest opportunity. I cannot say
better than that.
What is you opinion on
the Asda/Weymouth football club issue?
I am keen to see West Dorset District Council
working with Weymouth & Portland Borough
Council to resolve the issue of where an
extra supermarket should be located for
the Weymouth and Portland area. If a supermarket
was to be located at Wessex Stadium it would
be great for the Football Club. I hope that
the District Council will look at the studies
that have been carried out by Weymouth &
Portland and ASDA. If both studies are correct
then the Wessex Stadium site would be appropriate
for ASDA with regards to government policy
on out of town shopping. I am sure that
a solution can be found that is good for
Weymouth shoppers and good for Weymouth
Football Club.
What is your view on
EU integration / the EU constitution?
If Britain is to succeed economically
and politically in an ever increasing global
world we have to be at the heart of Europe.
Increasingly governments can only hope to
influence global forces by pooling sovereignty
through institutions such as the European
Union.
That is why it is so important that we
seek to engage as fully as possible in shaping
the future of the European Union. Like many
I am critical of the lack of accountability
of the EU and the European Commission, but
the benefits to the UK of a strong Europe
are clear: long-term peace and economic
stability; increased trade with our European
allies; additional clout when it comes to
worldwide bargaining such as in the WTO;
improved cooperation between European police
and defence forces; a level playing field
with our trading partners when it comes
to selling UK goods abroad.
I support the Government's policy on the
Euro. The Chancellor should assess the economic
case for joining, then Britain should be
asked to choose whether or not to join in
a referendum. I believe that when Britain
gets the chance to see the evidence for
itself it will vote in favour of joining.
Membership of the Euro will benefit manufacturing,
agriculture, and tourism by ending currency
risks, it will benefit consumers through
cheaper prices generated by increased competition.
The new constitution will greatly improve
the EU for its members and their citizens.
For the last 15 months a Constitutional
Convention with representatives from the
25 countries of the soon-to-be-enlarged
European Union, has been drafting a new
rule-book for the EU. The convention has
held all its meetings in public, held hearings
with NGOs, social partners, etc, received
submissions from hundreds of organisations
and made every draft document, amendment
and proposal available.
At present the EU is governed by a series
of treaties that make it increasingly difficult
to understand the workings of the Union.
Furthermore, next year the EU is enlarging
from 15 to 25 member states. It is because
of these two facts that action is being
taken now to consolidate and simplify the
rules and to make a clear constitution which
sets out more precisely the powers and limits
of the EU.
As a result, the ‘constitution’
will change little of the substance but
make the EU accountable and understandable.
There will be some changes. Britain has
argued for the following: a Chairman of
the European Council, a greater role for
national Parliaments in the workings of
the EU, some expansion of majority voting
(QMV). But the British government has clearly
stated that QMV is not acceptable in core
areas of national sovereignty, such as tax
and defence affairs. Any decisions must
be agreed by every member state, including
Britain and ratified by Parliament.
The government is not prepared to put the
constitutional treaty to a referendum because
in Britain, Parliament scrutinises treaties
before ratification. Britain has only ever
had one referendum (the 1975 referendum
on the EEC membership) and the government
has promised a referendum on the Euro. However,
the next European Treaty will not result
in changes of that scale. Only three European
member states, Ireland, Denmark and Portugal,
are planning to hold referendums and about
half of the member states have no plans
for doing so.
We are already members of the EU and this
gives us many rights and benefits. Our membership
of the EU has transformed the British economy,
improved many areas of British society and
has given Britain greater worldwide influence.
I hope these facts help present a more realistic
picture of the current negotiations.
I am in full support of the Government’s
commitment to completing House of Lords
Reform, including the removal of the remaining
hereditary peers, to make it more representative
and democratic. I am in support of a majority
elected Second Chamber and support direct
elections by a second vote on General Election
day by a regional open list system to a
Chamber of less than 600 members. My preference
is that 80% are directly elected and 20%
appointed independently for their expertise.
The House of Commons has given this subject
serious attention over the past several
months and actually engaged in a free vote
on 4 February 2003. Members had seven options
to choose from and could vote for as many
or as few as they pleased. The options included
a second chamber that was fully appointed,
fully elected, 80% appointed/20% elected,
80% elected/20% appointed, 60% appointed/40%
elected, 60% elected/40% elected, and 50%
elected/50% appointed. Unfortunately, the
House of Commons was not able to reach a
consensus and all the options presented
failed with the 80% elected/20% appointed
option receiving the most support and failing
by only 3 votes. It will now be the job
of the government and the Joint Committee
on House of Lords Reform to decide how to
proceed.
Why I do not support abolition
Many people do feel that a second chamber
is required. In the past, the House of Lords
has served as a revising chamber and offered
much wisdom and expertise when passing legislation.
Many pieces of legislation that passed out
of the House of Commons have a clearer purpose
and better serve the people of the UK due
to the wisdom expressed during House of
Lords debate, revision, and passage. Many
feel losing this expertise would be a disadvantage
to UK legislation and the bi-cameral system
that has been in place for centuries. This
is why I personally support a second chamber
that is majority elected. I feel this type
of chamber could continue its revising duties
and would receive legitimacy from the elections
process.
Although I was not called upon to speak
in the debate (04 February 2003), my prepared
speech is outlined below for your information.
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to be able to
contribute to this debate as someone who
has been campaigning hard for a democratic
second chamber. I have talked to many members
of the House on the issue and followed the
debate closely.
A useful starting point is what the Prime
Minister said to the House last week, column
877:
Everyone agrees that the status quo should
not remain. Everyone agrees that the remaining
hereditary peers should go and, what is
more, that the prime ministerial patronage
should also go. However, the issue then
is whether we want an elected or do we want
an appointed House? I personally think that
a hybrid between the two is wrong and will
not work.
I agree with the first half – the
need for change; but I disagree with the
Prime Minister on hybridity.
In the 21st century it is difficult to
survey the world and observe a field not
advanced by this word. Hybrid electric vehicles
are leading the way to less polluted environments
and economies not dependent on foreign energy
resources. Hybrid networks have brought
us a wider breadth of broadband access and
products that have increased the productivity
of the working world. Hybrid plants have
increased the amount and hardiness of food
we are able to produce for starving populations.
And today we have the opportunity to create
a hybrid second chamber that, on the one
hand enhances the integrity of our democracy,
and on the other preserves the expertise
we admire and need in a second chamber.
A hybrid chamber is a compromise. In 2003,
the opportunity for reform cannot be mentioned
without the underlying theme of compromise.
The needed legislative reform that previous
Parliaments have not accomplished for over
a century has been caused by a lack of willingness
to compromise. We cannot afford to make
the same mistake. Having listened to debate,
I have heard honourable members present
a vast range of options for reform. Each
has their own expertise and there is merit
to many of the points made. It is for this
reason that I implore honourable and right
honourable members to incorporate their
own beliefs with those of others, for this
is the only way we are going to accomplish
our goal.
We currently have a second chamber with
hybrid members – inherited, appointed
and ex-officio – it works well but
for the lack of any democratic legitimacy.
I reject completely the notion that democracy
is incapable of providing the expertise
and experience needed in a revising chamber.
I trust the electorate to appoint people
for the job, and the electorate expects
to be given that right. But in order to
give extra safeguard we should opt for options
which allow the elected element to be topped
up with experience and expertise through
independent appointment and aiding a representative
balance in terms of such things as gender
and ethnicity.
And so I ask for members to vote for a
second chamber that is 80% elected/20% appointed
and 60% elected/40% appointed, in addition
to other options they may be voting for.
I feel these options are currently the best
options for compromise and a step towards
creating a legitimate second chamber.
In addition to outlining the benefits of
these options, I would also like to demonstrate
a sensible way in which they can be carried
out. Having opted for a largely elected
second chamber we will need to devise the
best electoral system, and I believe we
can unify around the secondary mandate system.
My right honourable friend from Shepard’s
Bush mentioned Dorset’s well known
political thinker, Billy Bragg, in debate
last month. Mr. Bragg has outlined the necessary
details of a secondary mandate system in
several essays, and asserts that this system
could bring about the reform needed in the
House of Lords and offer the air of legitimacy
demanded by our constituents. He describes
a system where:
“Votes cast for party candidates in
each constituency at the general election
would be accumulated at regional level.
The parties would secure the number of regional
members for each region proportional to
their share of the vote in that region,
drawing the names from a previously published
list.”
This system offers several distinct benefits
for a reformed chamber and incorporates
the goals set by the Joint Committee –
a House of Lords that is legitimate, representative,
politically diverse, independent, and filled
with expertise.
Under the secondary mandate system, every
vote cast would have value – a vote
for Labour could only result in a seat for
Labour. This gives legitimacy to the second
chamber, as constituents will be enticed
to engage in the democratic process knowing
their vote will count because every party
has the opportunity to be represented.
To extend independence Mr. Bragg suggests
that members of the House of Lords could
serve non-renewable terms. I would also
suggest that the second chamber be elected
in thirds for a term of three Parliaments.
Coupled with the ideal of regionalism, this
allows for a truly independent think-tank.
Individual constituencies, political parties,
and whips could not pressure the Lords to
succumb to self-serving agendas. Rather,
the second chamber would have the freedom
to be a revising chamber left to focus on
regional and National issues without outside
pressures influencing their opinions, and
without conflicting with our representational
role.
This actually multiplies into an additional
benefit, as it would create a separation
of powers and ensure the primacy of the
House of Commons. MP’s would be elected
in the first past the post system, which
would cause them to retain their pre-eminence
due to the fact they had been directly elected
on a personal vote from their constituencies.
Because the second chamber composition would
be abstracted from direct votes for MP’s,
the Lords would be one step removed from
the personal mandate. This would provide
the perfect level of independence and legitimacy
for the Lords, while clearly delineating
between the purposes of the two chambers.
It would also afford the second chamber
the opportunity to act as a check to the
executive. No party has ever won over 50%
of the vote in modern times. Therefore,
it would not be possible for a majority
party to dominate the second chamber and
push forward the government’s agenda
or blindly oppose it. Instead, a balance
of the majority party and opposition parties
would be present, fostering an academic
presence for revising without causing internal
gridlock.
Having presented arguments for the first
four tenets set out by the Joint Committee,
I would now like to show how a hybrid House
could incorporate expertise. I relish the
fact that we have gained so much from the
second chamber and their revising powers
over the past 700 years. Our legislation
is often improved state due to the wisdom
extended by the other place. This is precisely
why the hybrid option offers a plethora
of benefits.
The elected portion of a hybrid House would
ensure the existence of the first four tenets
of a House of Lords that is legitimate,
representative, politically diverse, and
independent. The appointed portion of a
hybrid House would add expertise. An open
and transparent commission charged with
the task of appointing a portion of the
House that represents all backgrounds and
walks of life would produce the diverse
House of Lords needed to properly compliment
the House of Commons and the objectives
of a modern day government.
At the beginning of this address, I stated
this was a time for compromise. Through
this speech I have demonstrated why this
is needed, how we can create a more diverse
representation for this Nation, and that
this is what has been charged to us by the
public. A hybrid Chamber will encompass
the broadband of spectrums all of us want
to see in a reformed chamber. It will create
a chamber with legitimacy, while preserving
the pre-eminency of the Commons. A hybrid
house will lead the way for progress and
send a clear message that we are ready for
change. Unlike solely voting for extreme
options such as 1 and 7 and sending the
message to the government and the Joint
Committee that we cannot reach an agreement
even amongst ourselves, we can compromise
and offer the Joint Committee and the government
guidance. We need to demonstrate the possibility
for equilibrium, first within our own House
and then combined with ideas from the other
House. Only through finding middle ground
can we demonstrate that we are ready to
work together and accomplish what no other
Parliament has been able to. If we cannot
do that, this session will end in defeat,
just as all previous ones that took up this
debate. Rather, I strongly encourage you
to work towards victory, vote for options
4 and 6, and show you are ready to compromise
for visionary roots of change.
The Hunting Bill was introduced to the
House of Commons on 3rd December 2002 and
the public can access the bill online by
clicking on the following link:
To surmise, the new bill prohibits the
hunting with dogs of wild mammals except
when that hunting is registered or exempt.
Deer hunting with dogs and hare coursing
are prohibited.
Registration will only be granted for hunting
with dogs which satisfies tests of utility
and least suffering. All registered hunting
is subject to conditions concerning the
conduct of the hunting, the welfare of the
wild mammals to be hunted and inspection.
Finally, the bill establishes a register
to determine applications concerning registration
and an independent Hunting Tribunal to hear
appeals from the registrar’s decision.
Prescribed animal welfare bodies may provide
evidence to the registrar for hunters to
be de-registered.
I have voted consistently for a ban on
hunting with hounds when this matter has
been debated in the House of Commons. This
is a very important issue and also a very
divisive one. Like the government, I am
sure that the majority of the population
want to see this matter concluded as soon
as possible.
There will be a free vote on this issue
when debated in Parliament and I do want
to consider the views held by my constituents.
I have written to all my constituents that
have previously contacted me about this
issue, asking for their comments.
From my reading of the bill, this legislation
would effectively end hunting with dogs
as a sport. Lowland mounted hunting would
fail the cruelty test because of the chase
involved, even if it passed the utility
test. However, the bill may allow for the
continuation of upland hunting. This would
be carried out on foot with dogs used to
flush out the prey which would then be shot.
This is more likely to pass the test of
being the least cruel option, if it has
passed the utility test. The bill would
presume against hunting and it would be
up to the applicant to prove that the tests
are met.
I do accept that there will be an economic
impact on some rural areas if a ban goes
ahead and I am keen for the government to
work with representatives of those affected
to mitigate these problems if a ban goes
ahead. For example, we need an affordable
means of disposal of ‘fallen stock’
for farmers; we need to see if drag hunting
and equestrian sports such as endurance
riding can be developed further to support
farriers and livery stables.
The House of Commons took a vote on the
Hunting Bill on 30th June 2003 and I am
now writing to update you on this important
issue and to inform you of what happens
next.
Considering the nature of this issue, several
amendments were tabled, including one by
Tony Banks MP, calling for an outright ban
and one from the Minister Alun Michael,
discussing the licensing system, including
'closed seasons'. These two amendments were
essentially on the same point in the Bill.
Because they were in direct conflict with
each other, the committee clerks decided
that only one should be voted on and then
discussed in committee.
This is why the government took the decision
to withdraw their amendment.
I supported the Tony Banks amendment supporting
a total ban and the result of this vote
was 362 votes in support and 154 votes against.
Clearly this outcome is a victory for those
who support a total ban.
The Bill will now have to return to a Commons
standing committee because the legislation
has been so radically altered. It will then
come back to the House of Commons, still
as a government Bill.
Finally, the government has promised to
use the Parliament Act to enforce the will
of the Commons if peers vote down the Bill.
The Bill has to be presented to the Lords
a month before the end of the parliamentary
session in November for the act to be enforced.
Following devolution in Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland in 1999, there remains
the issue of how England should be governed
in a devolved UK.
Labour made a manifesto commitment in 1997
to establish elected region in office, Labour
established Regional Development Agencies,
designed to promote economic development
in a region. Labour’s 2001 manifesto
reiterated the commitment made in the 1997
manifesto. This led to the publication of
a White Paper entitled Your Region, Your
Choice: Revitalising the English Regions,
published on 9 May 2002, that outlines the
government’s plans for Regional Assemblies.
Following the White Paper, the Regional
Assemblies (Preparations) Bill was published
on 14 November 2002 and received Royal Assent
on 8 May 2003.
The Bill makes provision for referendums
to be held about the establishment of elected
assemblies for the English regions other
than London. The Bill does not provide for
the establishment of the assemblies themselves.
Legislation for that will only be introduced
once at least one region has voted for an
elected assembly.
The Bill also provides for the Boundary
Committee for England to review local government
structure before any referendum. Government
policy is that regions choosing an elected
assembly must move to wholly unitary local
government. The Bill also makes a new power
for funding existing Regional Chambers.
On 16 June 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister,
John Prescott, announced that assembly referendums
would be held in the North East, Yorkshire
and the Humber.
In making his decision on whether a region
should have a referendum, the Deputy Prime
Minister has to consider the level of interest
in the region in holding a referendum. The
decision announced on 16 June was based
on the outcome of a soundings exercise,
which began on 2 December 2002 in the eight
regions outside London. The results of the
exercise were published in Your Region,
Your Say. It estimated that at least 50,000
people were involved in the soundings exercise.
The Deputy Prime Minister commented:
More than 7,000 direct responses were from
individuals. The rest came from organisations
or individuals responding in a representative
capacity—for example, through surveys
or petitions. Although those responses represented
the views of many hundreds of individuals,
they were each recorded as a single response.
It will not be a surprise to the House
that levels of interest in a referendum
vary between the different regions of England.
In some regions interest was low. In the
west midlands, only 16 per cent. of respondents
said that that they wanted a referendum.
In the east and south-east of England, about
35 per cent. said that they wanted a referendum,
and in the south-west and the east midlands
the figure was about 40 per cent. Taken
together with other views, information and
evidence, those figures show that there
is insufficient evidence in the west midlands,
the east of England, the south-east, the
south-west and the east midlands to justify
holding a referendum now. I am therefore
not directing the boundary committee to
undertake local government reviews in those
regions.
The picture is quite different in the three
northern regions. In the north-east and
the north-west, more than half of respondents
wanted a referendum. In my own region, Yorkshire
and Humberside, almost three quarters said
yes—although I am aware that the right
hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David
Davis) registered his minority "no"
vote. In all three northern regions, there
was significant and widespread interest
in holding a referendum from the business
community, trade unions, local authorities
and the voluntary sector. Taking all that
evidence together, I am satisfied that interest
in a referendum is high in all three regions.
I am therefore pleased to announce to the
House that it is my intention to hold referendums
at the first opportunity in the north-east,
the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber.
I expect that opportunity to come in the
autumn of 2004.
I support moves to the creation of Regional
Assemblies.
What is your view on
the proposals for wind farms in the county?
I have received many representations
about the various proposals for creating
wind farms in the county - and in particular
the proposal for an offshore wind farm in
Portland Harbour.
Any proposal to generate over 85% of the
power needs of the Borough from renewable
sources has to be looked at very closely.
I have met with Powergen to discuss their
proposals, as well as other concerned interested
parties. I have also been carrying out a
listening survey in Wyke Regis and Portland.
Powergen state that they are currently
at the feasibility stage and are some way
away from deciding whether or not they would
want to proceed with the idea. It is quite
possible, for example, that they may find
that the cost of connecting the proposed
wind farm to the National Grid is prohibitively
too costly.
Other concerns include:
Visual impact - Powergen are preparing
mock ups of the visual impact of the turbines.
Some people find wind farms inspiring, others
find them an ugly unnatural intrusion on
the landscape. We will need to make a judgement
in context of the World Heritage status
of our coast.
Noise - I understand that Powergen are
carrying out studies on noise that they
will then contour to map the impact in various
places around the Harbour. This will be
a crucial factor for local residents and
visitors to a potential Olympic venue.
Future of the Sailing Academy - it would
be nonsense to spend £6.5 million
of public money on developing an important
element in our economic development strategy
only to jeopardise it by this proposal.
I have met and spoken with Susie Thompson
from the Royal Yachting Association who
works on planning matters for the RYA and
they have concerns about "wind shadowing".
These fears must be addressed.
Effect on birdlife - there are concerns
about the possible effect on migrating seabirds
that are being examined. We are fortunate
in having two RSPB reserves in Weymouth
attracted some rare species that should
be protected.
I will be closely examining the development
of the proposals against these concerns.
If they all can be satisfied it would be
difficult for anyone to objectively oppose
the development. We would then want to negotiate
the maximum contribution to local causes
from Powergen and seek to ensure that as
much local manufacture of the £25
million construction project is spent locally.
February, 2004; Jim Knight adds:
I have received analysis from the Royal
Yachting Association on the effects of the
proposed wind turbines on sailing in Portland
Harbour. They suggest that the proposals
would have a very damaging effect on the
sport. Given the importance of the sailing
academy to the area’s economic development
I would oppose the wind farm development
in this location unless Powergen can prove
the Royal Yachting Association analysis
to be false.
What is your view on
the World Trade Organisation?
I share the concerns of many of my constituents
about the effects of world trade rules on
developing countries. As you may know, leading
up to the WTO summit in Cancun last year,
I wrote to many church groups in South Dorset
asking for their help in lobbying across
Europe and in the US to make Cancun a success.
I was therefore immensely disappointed that
talks broke down.
All countries stand to gain from a completion
of the Doha round of trade talks, but the
poorest stand to gain the most. A new deadline
of 15 December has now been set and I hope
that WTO members can resolve their differences
so we can move forward in the New Year.
Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry, has already spoken to
the Director General of the WTO, Dr. Supachai
Panitchpakdi, about how we in the UK can
help to drive the agenda forward.
Some significant steps were made during
the course of 2003 that will help an eventual
agreement and we should be pleased with
this progress:
Early in 2003, an agreement was reached
on access to medicines for developing countries.
This still stands and must now be built
upon, particularly through the Global Fund
for HIV/Aids, TB and Malaria.
In June, the EU Agriculture Council agreed
significant reforms to the Common Agricultural
Policy - reforms that will mean substantial
cuts in the trade distorting support and
export subsidies we give to our own farmers
and which do so much damage to the farmers
of the developing world. This has long been
an aim of the Labour government in Britain
and was not conditional on agreement at
Cancun.
We saw at Cancun the formation of the
G21 and other strengthened developing country
groupings. This is wholly to be welcomed
- indeed the UK helped it to happen through
the £110m that has been given to trade
related capacity building and technical
assistance since 1998 - with an additional
£50m announced in September 2003.
The WTO is a one member, one vote organisation
with a majority of developing countries.
The development of a powerful negotiating
bloc for developing countries is certainly
a positive step towards a stronger voice
for poorer nations.
Furthermore, at Cancun itself, real progress
was made in discussions on agriculture and
other vital issues. There is no doubt that
an agreement was closer by the end of Cancun
that at the beginning. For example, Commissioner
Lamy, on behalf of the European Union, offered
to completely abandon negotiations on two
of the so-called ‘Singapore Issues,’
investment and competition, a position that
was fully supported by the British government.
Many other WTO members also signalled a
willingness to be flexible on various issues,
which provides optimism for the success
of future talks.
I hope this gives you some encouragement
that the issue of fair trade is still high
on this government’s agenda. I am convinced
that the government will maintain pressure
on EU countries and the US so that more
can be achieved.
I appreciate the concerns of constituents
who have written to me about HMS Hood.
The harbour authority, Portland Port, has
withdrawn access to HMS Hood in the interests
of safety whilst the Authority conducts
an assessment of the future use and status
of the south ship channel and the future
of the wreck of the Hood.
I have been in contact with Portland Port
and with Graham Knott, Chairman of Weymouth
and Portland Dive Boat Association, and
I have persuaded them to meet shortly to
discuss the options.
I realise the importance of this wreck
for divers, tourism and local businesses
in the area and I hope that a suitable agreement
can be reached as soon as possible.
