| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South): May I ask my right hon. Friend to return to the issue of higher education, which was raised by the shadow Leader of the House? What kind of legislative vehicle do the Government intend to use for the introduction of tuition fees? Will primary or secondary legislation be required? Irrespective of the vehicle to be used, will she give a firm guarantee that there will be a full and frank debate--preferably a full-day debate--in the House?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that primary legislation will be required. Therefore, there will be a Second Reading debate which, I would imagine, will be a full debate, as is normal.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Is the right hon. Lady aware that we, at least, supported the previous policy on tobacco sponsorship of formula one, and we agree very much with the EU Social Affairs Commissioner who has said that the Government's decision is a disaster and a complete U-turn? We would welcome a statement.
An equally important issue is the fate of rape victims in court, to which the Home Secretary referred in a BBC interview this morning. When can we expect a statement on the legislation to be introduced? How quickly can it be introduced? May we be assured that the Home Secretary will not be as dilatory as the previous Government were in trying to deal with this serious problem?
Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that there will be a debate as soon as the Public Accounts Commission has considered the evidence of the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, who yesterday outlined the appalling level of bungling which all of us, as constituency Members, are still experiencing with that agency?
Finally, the Minister of Agriculture gave notice earlier in the week that the Government are actively considering our representations that there should be a full inquiry into not just the last 18 months of the BSE crisis, but the way in which it developed under the previous Government. When will we get an announcement on that inquiry?
Mrs. Taylor:
To take the last point first, the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said earlier in the week, and I have nothing to add to that.
On tobacco sponsorship, as I said a few moments ago, there is little point in having a ban that is counter-productive. If we drive the sport out of this country, people will still see the adverts on television because the pictures cannot be blocked.
I do not think that we can have a debate in the very near future on the important issue of rape victims, but we have made progress on the matter. The Home Secretary announced in June that he was establishing an urgent review to ensure that all vulnerable or intimidated witnesses received better treatment from the criminal justice system. That working group is taking evidence and we hope that it will be able to report to Ministers by the end of the year. Further statements will follow from that.
On the PAC and the inquiries into the CSA, I should be surprised if there is any hon. Member who has not experienced considerable difficulty in trying to pursue CSA cases on behalf of constituents. It is an appalling situation, and obviously there are very deep problems which will take some time to resolve.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
There will be a warm welcome for today's announcement on the reduction in the number of animals killed in laboratories in Britain, but there will be some disappointment that the total of 3 million animals killed every year will be reduced by a mere couple of hundred. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that this complex matter can be discussed? Has she seen early-day motion 342?
[That this House notes with dismay that 400,000 animals are killed every year just to provide body parts for medical research when many scientists agree that test-tube studies using donated human tissue give more reliable results, but that lack of availability prevents its widespread use; urges that donated human tissue be used wherever possible to save animals and achieve more accurate results; and calls upon the Government to establish and co-ordinate a national network of human tissue banks to overcome the shortage of suitable human tissue and to introduce a new donor card that gives the public the option of donating organs for transplantation and/or tissue for research.]
A debate would enable us, as a superior species, to decide that it is unacceptable for us to treat sentient living creatures as if they were jars of chemicals in experiments designed not to improve human health, but to increase the profits of commercial industries.
Mrs. Taylor:
I understand my hon. Friend's concern, although I cannot promise an early debate. He is right to say that there is a great deal of public concern about testing on animals, and that is why the statement from the Home Office today about the end to cosmetic testing on animals will be welcomed. My hon. Friend should give credit for the significant step forward that has been made on cosmetic testing.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
Will the Leader of the House next week revisit her answer on Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the Finance Bill? I realise that it was an oral answer given in the heat of the moment, but she gave the impression that this year's treatment would become par for the course. That would cause alarm in the City of London.
Mrs. Taylor:
Pro rata, this year's Finance Bill had as much time as the Bills of previous years, so I do not think that our treatment of that Bill was unprecedented.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider my request for a Members' cycle allowance yet? Does she think that a debate on Members' travel allowances would be helpful?
Mrs. Taylor:
I am not sure that it will be possible to have a debate, but I hope that we can make some progress on the cycle allowance in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
Can the Leader of the House make time next week for a debate on the European Union proposal to do away with duty-free allowances for travel between EU countries? Would it not be an excellent opportunity to put pressure on the Government, before the Luxembourg Council, to get the European Union to do something about that and to change its mind? Otherwise, will not the measure have an adverse affect on British carriers, particularly those operating out of Heathrow, which is the borough in which my constituency lies, and on many enterprises such as the British Airports Authority and others with duty-free shops that provide badly needed employment?
Mrs. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman has made his point in such a way that he does not need a debate.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
Will the Leader of the House find time between now and Christmas to cause a debate to be held on Government computers, so that we could cause the computers that serve the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue to talk to each other--so that we might know who is in the black economy and who is not--and perhaps at the same time consider the quality of the Department of Trade and Industry computer, which appears to be giving the wrong answers at present?
Mrs. Taylor:
I do not think that there are too many wrong answers, but there was certainly an example last
Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull):
Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the working of the Department of Trade and Industry, because it is a well-known fact that a number of Ministers there are disqualified from speaking on certain subjects due to conflicts of interest? May we know who is competent to do what--if any?
Mrs. Taylor:
All the Ministers there are extremely competent.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
In response to the question from the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) about interests, I think that the Tories have got a cheek to be talking about people with interests, when 90 or 100 out of 164 of them have got three and four moonlighting jobs. If we are to have a debate, let us have one about that. On the more important question, because they are a trivial lot, I heard my right hon. Friend refer to the Child Support Agency as being in an appalling mess. That is an interesting phrase from a Minister. I know that a review is taking place and we all know that there are problems, that it has been in operation for five years and that at the beginning it was argued that it would provide benefits for women in particular. We all now know that as many women as men object to the Child Support Act 1995. Can we have an assurance that, perhaps, the idea of scrapping that Act is on the cards?
Mrs. Taylor:
No, it is a question not of scrapping the Child Support Agency, but of reviewing its workings. We had a debate just before the summer recess and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said afterwards that she had found it extremely useful to hear directly the experiences of many colleagues in respect of the problems of the CSA. I hope that we can ensure that the agency works more effectively, but, as I said, the problems are very severe indeed. A great backlog of work has not been completed when it should have been and, although my right hon. Friend is trying to resolve the situation, it is difficult to see that it and the problems that are arising can be dealt with in the very near future. It will be a long haul to get the agency back on track.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |