| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): Does the Leader of the House agree that, to justify a guillotine motion, there must be some evidence or assumption that the Bill would otherwise be delayed? The right hon. Lady has made no such suggestion to the House and the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the Government are becoming increasingly embarrassed by their finance provisions. Doubtless, she will have seen today in the national newspapers that more than one commentator observed that the Prime Minister got into a terrible muddle yesterday on public spending. When one considers the inflation deflator, the much-vaunted £1.2 billion for the national health service--
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale): This should be about next week's business.
Madam Speaker: Order. I will determine whether a question is in order. I am waiting for the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to refer to next week's business. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) must allow me, as Speaker, to determine whether a question is in order. I understand that he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the President of the Council, and he should have more sense than to intervene during business questions.
Mr. Baldry: My point about next week's business--and this week's business--is simply this: clearly, the guillotine motion will be used not because the Opposition will obstruct the passage of the Bill but because the Government are frit at the proper scrutiny of their proposals.
Mrs. Taylor: I had not assumed that the Opposition wanted to delay the Bill. They were simply unable to tell us what time they wanted in Committee, and we cannot make decisions on that basis. Timetable motions are not used just to prevent delays and they can produce orderly debates. We have agreed with the Opposition our proceedings for debate on the Floor of the House to make sure that four main issues are debated. The timetable in Committee will be reached by agreement in the normal way. I would say to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that if we were frightened of debate on the issue, we would not have extended the Budget debate to four days and we would not have been so generous in the time we are allocating.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can have a debate before the
summer on the accelerated highways review, particularly in relation to the proposed widening of the M25 for over a mile without any hard shoulder? That proposal is bad for the environment and for transport, and if it were to be approved by the Government over the summer recess it would raise questions about the impartiality of the Government in relation to the terminal 5 public inquiry.
The Department of Transport has given evidence to the inquiry that the widening of the M25 is essential to terminal 5, yet, in replies that I have received, the Government say that they have a different view on the widening of the M25 in relation to terminal 5. It is time that this delicate matter--and the proposed terminal 5, which I abhor--was debated on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Taylor:
I am afraid that I cannot promise my hon. Friend the kind of general debate that he wants. He is a very experienced Member, who usually finds ways of raising the issues that he thinks should receive extra attention. I am sure that it has occurred to him that the usual three-hour Adjournment debate will take place on the Wednesday morning prior to the summer recess.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport):
Surely the Leader of the House realises that there is considerable uncertainty in financial circles about the effect of advance corporation tax as it applies to foreign investors, and of foreign income dividends as they apply to companies with large foreign earnings. Surely she realises that this is important to those companies. It is not just a matter of how much time is provided in this House, but how much time is available for debate outside the House, so that those most involved can give a considered view and can advise us so that we can criticise the Finance Bill.
I raised the issue with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in relation to comments by the Paymaster General last Friday, and I see from Hansard that the reply was just waffle. It is not good enough for the Leader of the House to provide this foreshortened programme to consider such important financial measures.
Mrs. Taylor:
I think that there is sufficient time to debate the issues that we are talking about. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the issue of advance corporation tax is not one which has been identified by the Opposition as an issue that should be debated on the Floor of the House. It will be for the usual channels to agree on the division of time to debate the issues in Committee.
Ms Helen Southworth (Warrington, South):
Along with many of my constituents, I am concerned about the promotion and sale of alcohol to children. I am aware that the Portman Group has set up a task force to look at this matter, but it is very important that the drinks industry does not target its marketing and sales on this vulnerable group of people. Will my right hon. Friend find time in the Government's busy programme for a debate on this issue?
Mrs. Taylor:
My hon. Friend is right that this is a very worrying problem, and many parents in particular are concerned about the sale of alcopops. We welcome the Portman Group's attitude and the way in which it is looking into the problem, and we will study its findings in due course. There is a ministerial group looking at alcopops.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
May we have a statement from the President of the Board of Trade to explain why at last week's trade and industry questions she did not know the details of the possession of financial interests and their implications by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, even though he is a serving Minister in her Department?
Mrs. Taylor:
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and others, including myself, made it clear that there is no conflict of interest about Lord Simon and no problem about his shareholdings. He has complied with all the provisions of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". I am sure that my right hon. Friend was aware of that.
Ms Beverley Hughes (Stretford and Urmston):
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the emerging reports that some young people are combining Ecstasy and Prozac--apparently, Prozac intensifies and prolongs the effect of the Ecstasy. As general drug misuse is a serious problem in many constituencies and in the light of her role in co-ordinating the Government's initiative on drug misuse, can she provide an early opportunity for debating that serious issue?
Mrs. Taylor:
My hon. Friend is right to say that that is another problem which causes parents and, I think, everyone throughout the country a great deal of concern. Taking any drug is risky. The safest option has to be not to take any drugs. Obviously, mixing drugs in the way that my hon. Friend described is extremely dangerous. We recently announced the grants to drug action teams to counter such problems. From what I have seen in the past few weeks, a great deal of positive work is going on to counter drug abuse and it is important that we all support those efforts to counter silly crazes of that type.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
A few moments ago, the right hon. Lady talked about discussions through the usual channels relating to the timetable motion for the Finance Bill. Does she not have a duty to Back Benchers on both sides of the House and not merely to the usual channels? Does she agree that it is odd that a timetable motion should be a weapon of first rather than last resort, bearing in mind the number of questions that Opposition Members have asked on matters of great importance to my colleagues, which perhaps did not appear in the list of priorities of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House?
Is it not vital to have open government and transparency and to use a timetable motion as a weapon of last resort and not decide on one even before the Second Reading of the Bill?
Mrs. Taylor:
I always thought that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of sensible timetabling on all Bills. If he has problems with the usual channels, that is a matter for the Conservative party. We have followed the normal procedures. I repeat that we did not lack generosity when it came to discussion of the Budget. We had four days for the Budget debate and we are having a Second Reading debate
Helen Jones (Warrington, North):
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern felt by many Labour Members about the proposals set in train by the previous Government to reduce the number of Customs officers? In view of the serious implications of that proposal, particularly for the importation of illegal drugs, will she find time for an urgent debate on that matter so that those concerns can be raised on the Floor of the House?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |