| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): In view both of the publication today of the House of Lords Select Committee report and of next week's business on the future of the House of Lords, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there will be an early opportunity to discuss genetically modified foods, particularly given the concerns of those who wish to have the choice not to buy GM foods?
Mrs. Beckett: I welcome the Select Committee's report as a useful contribution to the debate. Not everyone will agree with it and I am not committing myself about the attitude that the Government will take. I am simply saying that anything that contributes to the debate is welcome. I fear that I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on this matter, but we shall take her request into account.
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea): Will the right hon. Lady confirm that it is not too late to put into next week's business an urgent debate on the corruption of EC Commissioners? Her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dismisses any criticism of the EC Commission by attributing to those who make it a desire to pull out of the whole show immediately, but enormous sums of taxpayers' money have been misappropriated by individual commissioners, in particular by the French commissioner Madame Cresson. It is to be hoped that in such a debate right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would be rather less docile than those who followed the instructions of the Prime Minister in the European Parliament last week.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on that matter in the near future. Nor do I share the right hon. Gentleman's rationale for having such a debate. My perception is that the European Parliament and, indeed, representatives from many parties in that Parliament have expressed great concern and taken a tough line on fraud. Certainly this Government have done so. Those representatives emerge from last week's events with a strengthened means of scrutiny. I do not doubt that they will use those means and, if necessary, return to the subject.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In view of Monday's Adjournment debate on sanctions against Iraq and Tuesday's ten-minute Bill on parliamentary approval of military strikes, could a Minister see Denis Halliday, the former United Nations co-ordinator, who happens to be in Britain on Tuesday? He resigned his job on principle because he disagreed with the policy on Baghdad.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) has invited
all hon. Members to a meeting with Mr. Halliday on 26 January. I cannot know at this moment whether any of my ministerial colleagues will be able to meet him, but my hon. Friend is a classic example of how a Member's assiduity can obtain opportunities for debate on the Floor.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Does the Leader of the House accept that the announced departure of the leader of the Liberal party, which causes us all such sadness, gives the House an opportunity urgently to consider the anomalous position, largely created by him, whereby he was attempting to be at the same time part of the Government and part of the Opposition? Is she aware that that is causing concern not only among Opposition Members but among senior Labour figures? Will she provide time in next week's business to sort the matter out once and for all and decide whether the Liberal Democrats are part of the Government or a serious Opposition party?
Mrs. Beckett: If I were a Conservative, I would be cautious about making remarks about a serious Opposition party, because if the Conservatives were judged on performance, they might find themselves in some difficulty. It is not the act of a serious Opposition Member of any party to veto private Members' Bills through frivolous activity, as the right hon. Gentleman did in the previous Session. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the private affairs of any political party, no matter how dear the subject may be to the heart of many Members.
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on the position of the textile industry, following the announcement by the American Government that tariffs are to be imposed on textiles produced in Britain for import to America? Is not that an important subject for debate next week?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which I know is shared. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate next week, other than the one that is taking place on Wednesday morning.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): Will the Leader of the House pay attention to early-day motion 188, on the EU Commission, which requires urgent debate next week?
[That this House deplores the failure of Socialist MEPs to support measures to protect taxpayers' money from fraud, preferring instead to protect members of the EU Commission accused of fraud and nepotism; and applauds the efforts of Conservative MEPs to hold certain Commissioners to account on behalf of the taxpayers of Europe.]
Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), I hope that the right hon. Lady will also pay attention in planning next week's business to the widespread public disgust at the behaviour of 52 Labour Members of the European Parliament who did not have the courage of their convictions in pursuing their own motion. Would not that
debate allow the Government to confirm that the behaviour of Edith Cresson does not accord with what we would expect of one of our Ministers?
Mrs. Beckett:
I repeat that I will not be able to find time for a debate on that matter; nor do I share the hon. Gentleman's view of the premise for such a debate. There is a reform plan. We utterly condemn, as anyone must, any suggestion of fraud, corruption or incompetence and have supported measures to deal with them. As for the attempt to pretend that what happened resulted solely from the actions of Labour representatives in the European Parliament, he should know that members of his party saw the sense of our representatives' actions and voted with them.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
The Prime Minister would like people to become middle class, which is difficult for those who do not have a job, house or, in some cases, a vote. The homeless normally fall into all three categories. Can we therefore have a debate next week on homelessness and particularly on the inability of the homeless to vote? That ability could be delivered quickly to homeless people, even though it is more difficult to achieve jobs and houses.
Mrs. Beckett:
I certainly know of my hon. Friend's long campaign to encourage people to ensure that they have the opportunity to exercise their voting rights. It is a campaign that every hon. Member from every party should support. I appreciate that one of the effects of being homeless, among other damaging effects, is that someone can be disfranchised.
I hope that my hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary currently has these matters under review. I think that the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been to some extent misreported. He is saying that we ought to move further and further away from seeing barriers of class as a barrier to advancement. I hope that all hon. Members support that.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire):
Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the defence industry? I am sure that she will understand that, as a Member of Parliament for a significant British Aerospace factory in a sector undergoing rapid restructuring, I was deeply concerned by the Prime Minister's comments yesterday at Question Time, in which he seemed to suggest that he would give primacy to European rather than British interests in the restructuring of the defence industry. Such a debate would enable Opposition Members to express their deep concern at the implications of that approach.
Mrs. Beckett:
I am afraid that I cannot find time next week for a debate on the defence industry. Nor do I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the Prime Minister said anything yesterday that caused the need for such a debate. My right hon. Friend perfectly properly takes a robust attitude to the defence of Britain's armed forces and to their exercising the role to which their professionalism and skill entitle them in international deliberations and events.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney):
Will my right hon. Friend--[Interruption.] Will my right
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |