| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Lock (Wyre Forest): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his fresh thinking on the lottery? I particularly congratulate him, as a London Member of Parliament and one who appreciates the high arts, on his acceptance that there may have been a south-east tilt in lottery applications and distribution in recent years. I hope that the review and any mechanisms for future distribution of lottery money will ensure that the people's priorities are reflected in the people's lottery and, especially, that people in the regions outside the south-east get a fair crack of the whip in future schemes.
Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his compliments. I observe in passing that some parts of London have not done as well as some of the high-profile
projects in the heart of the capital city, but I can confirm that the people in the regions can expect to benefit from the proposals that we have put forward today.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Is it not a fact that we have been treated to a thoroughly miserable statement this afternoon? The Secretary of State has come to the Dispatch Box and said that teacher training and public health are no longer core functions of the Government, but can instead be supported by gambling. We have seen the Secretary of State squirming with unease, because he loathes the profit motive totally and yet is driven to the conclusion that the profit motive has provided the most successful lottery in the world.
We were promised a cheerful fairy tale this afternoon, but it has turned out to be a tale of two muggings. First, the Secretary of State has been mugged by the Chancellor and thoroughly rolled over and caned for his pains. More
important than the indignity that the Secretary of State has suffered is the mugging of the people's lottery. The people's money has been raided by an incompetent Government, who, when faced with hard, genuine choices about public finances, have reneged on the promises and undertakings that they have previously given--on the arrogant assumption that the public will never spot the difference. The public will spot the difference, and the Opposition will make sure that they do.
Mr. Smith:
That summation--if that is what it was meant to be--bore precious little resemblance to our exchanges this afternoon. The statement and the White Paper will enable the people of this country to get what they have long demanded: support from the national lottery, alongside the existing good causes, for innovative projects in health, education and the environment which add to the public's health, education and aspirations. That support will not replace the core responsibilities of the Exchequer and will put in place the people's priorities in the people's lottery.
Points of Order
4.19 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order to you and to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. May we have some clarification of the procedures of the House? Following requests from hon. Members from all parties, you have commented in recent weeks about the way in which the Government impart information in respect of their decision making which would lead to primary legislation being taken on the Floor of the House.
May I draw your attention to the fact that the Dearing report--which is due to be published this week--was the subject of much media comment at the weekend, particularly in respect of students' tuition fees? In particular, the Radio 4 news bulletins at 8 am and 9 am yesterday stated clearly that the Government have confirmed that they intend to end the principle of free higher education for all and that Ministers have accepted the Dearing review. The bulletins gave the Government's response to a report which has not yet been brought to the House.
If parliamentary procedures are to be changed and such information is to be made available to hon. Members at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning on Radio 4, I can assure the House that members of Her Majesty's Opposition are ready to man their radios. However, this seems to be a contradiction of the way in which such matters have been brought before the House in the past, and I should be grateful for your clarification.
Madam Speaker:
I am ready to respond to the hon. Lady, whom I thank for giving me notice of her point of order. I, too, have carefully examined the media reports to which she referred. It seems clear to me that these were based on very heavy briefing on the contents of a report which, as she points out, has not as yet been published and on the likely ministerial response to it.
The practice of briefing in advance of a ministerial statement by Whitehall sources or ministerial aides has been current for quite a long time. My impression is that, over the past 20 years, it has progressively developed to the point where the rights of the House are in danger of being overlooked. The House is rightly jealous of its role in holding Ministers to account. If it is to fulfil its function properly, it must be the first to learn of important developments in Government policy. I deprecate most strongly any action taken that tends to undermine this important principle, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising her point of order today.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
Further to the point of order that I raised with you on Friday, Madam Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Government that they are to make a statement on the reported sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia? It is important that such a statement should be made before the recess so that we are aware of the precise situation, which appears to show a contradiction in Government policy.
Madam Speaker:
I have not been told today that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter. I clearly recall the hon. Lady raising a point of order with
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answering my points earlier, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that I had had the White Paper some hours before he rose to deliver his statement. For the purposes of clarification--and to raise a wider point--I should say that I had half an hour to study the White Paper before he stood up and that I received the statement itself two minutes before he stood up. This makes it difficult to respond in a satisfactory way, and I hope that that will be dealt with satisfactorily by a Government who are prepared to listen to these concerns.
Madam Speaker:
I see that there is a Minister from that Department on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps he did not hear the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, but I am sure that note will be taken of them. The point that was being made was that Opposition Front-Bench Members are receiving White Papers and statements rather late in the day, which gives little opportunity for them to prepare their response.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
On a separate but connected point of order, Madam Speaker, arising from questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. There are questions on the Order Paper today, not least No. 3, from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which relate to the millennium, yet the Minister without Portfolio has not been present in the Chamber. I have received a written answer from him to say that he would answer oral questions on matters within his responsibility, in which he specifically includes matters to do with the millennium.
The Minister without Portfolio has not, as far as I know, been in the House to answer questions since 1 May. He has a large budget, he clearly has a lot of power behind the scenes, and he has specific responsibilities for matters that were answered this afternoon--most ably, no doubt--by the Secretary of State. I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. There is a danger that the Minister without Portfolio is bypassing the Chamber and Parliament and acting in a way that is discourteous to you and to the House.
Madam Speaker:
It is not a matter for me which Minister answers questions at the Dispatch Box. There is something known as collective responsibility, and any Minister from that Department may answer questions.
I see the Secretary of State. Is he trying to raise a point of order?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The questions on the Order Paper today were about the millennium in general; I have responsibility in the Government for the overall celebration of the millennium. If a question is specifically about the exhibition at Greenwich, it will be answered by the
Madam Speaker:
I have the Official Report for 7 July, in which, at column 324, the Minister without Portfolio says that he will answer questions on the millennium dome.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |