| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Taylor: I know full well, not least from my constituency interests, of the concerns that many people have about opencast mining. The consultation period finished at the end of October and I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make a statement on the matter early in the new year. There are opportunities to raise the issue in the near future, not least during the three-hour Adjournment debate just before the recess.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Concerns have already been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the conduct of Ministers. The Leader of the House will be aware that the code of conduct was reissued in June or July this year and that it is now called the ministerial code. May we have a debate on the ministerial code? Does the right hon. Lady agree that the reputation of the House is put in doubt when Treasury Ministers have tax avoidance plans for £12 million and statements are made outside before they are made in the House? Those actions may have been taken in ignorance; perhaps such matters should be included in the code. They could well be included in the debate that I have suggested.
Mrs. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that there is no need to discuss those issues.
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for outlining the work of European Standing Committee B next week. Yesterday, documents on shipbuilding were listed on the Order Paper. Will that matter be debated before the recess?
Will my right hon. Friend write to Liberal Democrat Members to remind them of their membership of European Standing Committee B, given that they have been absent, to all intents and purposes, from the past six sittings?
Mrs. Taylor:
I am pleased that a new Member has so quickly come to terms with the detail of European Standing Committee B; I recommend that to others. The only debates that have been scheduled for that Committee so far are the ones that I have announced. The debates over the next week or so are extremely important. I remind the House that European Standing Committees are open to any Member of any party.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
It appears that the right hon. Lady made an illegitimate inference from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Has she seen this morning's leader in The Daily Telegraph which is headlined "Let them eat cake"? She should have seen early-day motion 555 on the conduct of the Paymaster General.
[That this House, mindful of Labour's pledge not to 'permit tax reliefs to millionaires in offshore tax havens', notes that the Paymaster General is simultaneously
abolishing PEPs and TESSAs, and is a beneficiary of the offshore Orion Trust; and calls upon him to clarify why he sold his rights to £10 million of Trans Tec shares to Stenbell, and how much of the latter he owns, and why these shares were then passed to Orion, whether he holds any other of his 30.4 million shares in Trans Tec in offshore trusts, whether Orion was the family trust noted in Trans Tec's 1996 annual report in which he held 9.8 million shares, and who increased this holding to 12.7 million shares in September 1997, and whether Orion holds any other assets, why and when he made a personal loan of $1 million to Roll Centre Inc. before its purchase by Trans Tec and whether any similar loans are extant, whether he is still in receipt of pension certification or other emoluments for Trans Tec, what agreement was conducted with the late Robert Maxwell on the 1991 company merger with Trans Tec, and why the latter sold back his shares just before his death.]
A debate on the taxation of savings next spring is not soon enough. I would welcome the opportunity now to discuss the possibility of giving England the same tax status as Guernsey, so that Treasury Ministers can invest in my constituency.
Mrs. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman should have taken the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton.)
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the number and range of experiments carried out on animals? Is she aware that, according to Home Office figures, 3 million animal experiments are carried out, many of which are repetitive, unnecessary and probably unreliable? I welcome the fact that the Government have banned cosmetic testing, but that will reduce the number of experiments by only about 200, leaving a huge number.
Is the right hon. Lady also aware that at Porton Down, the Ministry of Defence has almost trebled the number of experiments carried out on animals in recent years, many of which are deeply unpleasant and very painful for the animals concerned? Is she aware that the number of animal experiments there is now at its highest since 1982? Does she understand that this is a serious matter for the public? What steps can she take to ensure that hon. Members can debate the issue?
Mrs. Taylor:
Again, the hon. Gentleman has used his time well to make his points. I cannot promise time for a debate. Many hon. Members on both sides and members of the Government are concerned about the total number of experiments, but it is never easy to reduce the number overnight. The hon. Gentleman has pointed to some of the facts that have led to the increase in recent years. Some progress has been made by the ban on cosmetic testing and I hope that there are other ways in which we can continue to improve animal welfare.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
Will the Leader of the House vouchsafe a debate on the quality and consistency of legal advice offered to the Government, especially in relation to European legislation? I understand that the reason why the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rejected the first option under the SEAC proposals, and did not take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), was that he had received legal advice
Mrs. Taylor:
I do not think that that is necessary. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he would have been acting irresponsibly if he had not taken the advice that he was given yesterday. To act quickly was absolutely essential. He also had to consider the options and decide which one was most practical and which one could be easily understood and implemented. On that basis, he made the right decision, he made it quickly, and most important, he published the advice--unlike the situation under the previous Government.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
First, may I make it clear to the Leader of the House that, in the comments that I made yesterday, I was not referring to the usual channels. I was referring to how, as an hon. Member, I was able to read not the written answer to which she referred--I apologise for missing that--but the text of the Minister's statement, which he was due to make in the Scottish Grand Committee later that day.
We would welcome a debate on the release of information to the House. There is a difference between a broad briefing--or even embargoed information--to journalists in advance and the ability of those outside the House to read full texts of ministerial statements before they are made.
The point is not one of Government against Opposition but of the reputation and standing of the House. I accept that embargoed pieces of information were made available to journalists when we were in government. The speed of, and the change in, the process are important. Debates are being conducted on ministerial statements outside the House before they are debated inside it. It is the standing of the House which matters. If we cannot control the release of information and defend the rights of Members of Parliament, who on earth will do so?
Mrs. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. The simple fact is that the statement to which he referred was entirely based on the information that was available in the written answer, which was available to the public at 3.30 pm. He made a great deal of that yesterday, implying that my right hon. Friend the Minister had broken the conventions of the House. That was a serious charge, and I think that he ought to apologise for it.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
On behalf of the official Opposition, may I say first, as the matter was raised during Question Time, that we are extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your clear, unambiguous statement earlier? That leads me to my next point.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |