| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch): Could we have a second debate on the Jenkins report on electoral reform? When we last debated that report, about 50 Back-Bench Members applied to speak, but only a handful were able
to do so. I did not have the opportunity to speak, so, along with many of my hon. Friends, I should like a second opportunity to debate the issue and to condemn the report as an attack on democratic accountability.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to offer my hon. Friend such a debate in the near future, but I have heard and understood his comments. There is a great deal of concern and I know that many hon. Members wish to express their views on the matter. No doubt, they will have such an opportunity at some point.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): I join my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) in requesting a debate on the modernisation of Parliament and the reform of the House of Lords. As is consonant with our procedures, the right hon. Lady well knows that a major White Paper on constitutional reform does not require consultation through the usual channels, but it is a matter of honour for the Government to conduct such a debate. To argue that some of the proposals in the White Paper may be discussed in respect of a public Bill, which is narrowly drawn, on removing the hereditary principle from the House of Lord means that many of the issues in the White Paper could be ruled out of order by the Chair.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's record of concern for the business of the House is well known and recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but, with great respect, it is a little strong for him to say that debating a White Paper is a matter of honour. We have not followed the usual procedure for White Papers, which are often issued substantially in advance of legislation; in this case, the White Paper has been issued alongside the legislation, but it is a special case. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point that some of the issues raised in the White Paper may not be touched on during the debate. I do not wish to anticipate what will happen in the debate, but, as I hope that he will have observed, I undertook to consider the matter through the usual channels. That is the right way to proceed.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): May we have an early statement on changes to the code of conduct governing the passage of submarines through our traditional fishing grounds? I remind my right hon. Friend that the previous Government introduced the code of practice following the tragic loss of Carradale fishing vessel, the Antares, with its four-man crew, long after hon. Members such as me had called for such a code of conduct. Allegations have been made concerning two incidents late last year involving breaches of the code and I am still awaiting answers to parliamentary questions that I tabled a considerable time ago. I am making a reasonable request for a substantial response to the allegations concerning those two breaches of the code of conduct.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend, who takes a great and determined interest in those matters, has not yet had a response to his questions. I cannot offer him time for a debate or a statement in the near future, but I certainly undertake to take up with the relevant
Ministers the issues that he raised, because I know that they share his concern and will be anxious to give a response.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): Can the Leader of the House arrange a statement in the next two weeks on social security payments in different parts of the United Kingdom, especially when we are having more devolution? A lady came to live in my constituency in October, having been on disability living allowance in England. She contacted me yesterday because she has been turned down for the allowance on the ground that she has gone abroad.
Mrs. Beckett: I undertake to make inquiries and draw the case to the attention of the relevant Minister. Without knowing the particular circumstances of the case, I cannot be confident about how it might be handled, but I undertake to ensure that the relevant Department is aware of it.
Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk): Can my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the progress, or lack of it, in digital television? For more than a decade, my constituents have had to put up with second and third-grade reception of analogue television. They are extremely annoyed that the technical opportunities offered by the roll-out of digital television to give them decent reception have not been seized. People from Norfolk do not want to have to watch regional transmissions from Yorkshire. People in up to 40 or 50 constituencies are forced, if they want to watch digital television, to use Sky, which does not offer ITV channels. The whole issue needs to be properly examined. Will the Government at least make a statement on their policy, so that the broadcasters know where Government want them to go before we legislate?
Mrs. Beckett: I undertake to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the relevant Department. I am well aware, from my own experience, of the difficulties in television reception in many parts of Norfolk and of some of the regional sensitivities that arise. I fear that there may be a little too much optimism about the speed at which digital television will become available, but the Government are certainly considering the issues. A consultation paper was published last year, I believe, and we are considering the responses.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a full debate on Gibraltar? While Gibraltar is in crisis and its people are being victimised by Spanish authorities, it must surely be right for Ministers to come to the House voluntarily--not as they have done today--and tell us what they intend to do to protect the democratic rights of British citizens. As we have seen today, a mere protest to the European Commission is simply not enough.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) made a full statement today. I wholly refute the hon. Lady's clear implication that we are in any way failing to stand by the people of Gibraltar. We are taking
strong action that we hope and believe will ameliorate the problem and put an end to the difficulties. The Conservative party seems much more inclined to rattle sabres, shout and rant and call for the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. That will not help anybody.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South): In view of the bungling and incompetent way in which the Ministry of Defence handled the consultation process on the future of the Territorial Army, will the Leader of the House accede to the earlier request for a debate on that subject, based on the Defence Committee's report? Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I am concerned by the way in which the Minister of State, in a cavalier and discourteous way, has rubbished the report in advance of publication.
In addition, will the Leader of the House put pressure on the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement in the House on the way in which hospital facilities--particularly accident and emergency services--will be provided, in view of the MOD's decision to close the Royal Naval hospital, Haslar?
Mrs. Beckett:
Let me begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. He will know that, although the decision to close Haslar has been taken, it has long been made clear that that will be done only when suitable alternative arrangements are in place. He also referred to the future of the TA. As he said, the Defence Select Committee report has been published this morning, so there has been no time for anyone to study it. I have taken on board the request that has been made for a debate, but I fear that I cannot find time for one in the near future.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
Could the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the relationship between the Executive and Select Committees? I am a member of the Defence Select Committee, which sat for a number of hours taking evidence, and also paid visits, to produce a report on the Territorial Army, which is being launched now by the Chairman of the Committee. Does she understand that it was outrageous for the Minister for the Armed Forces to say on "Today" this morning that the Government will reject any criticisms in the report? That, allied to the handling by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of the report on Sierra Leone, shows that something is seriously wrong with the Executive's attitude to Committees of this House.
Mrs. Beckett:
I utterly reject what the hon. Gentleman says. It is extremely important that there is a good and constructive relationship--which will sometimes be one of different and strongly expressed views--between Select Committees and the Government of the day. That is why the structure of Select Committees is as it is. They contain Members of all parties and reflect the composition of the House. That relationship is crucial to holding the Executive to account.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |