| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): That last reply by the Leader of the House was absolutely astonishing, Madam Speaker. I was going to ask for a debate on fuel duties, but I am so amazed by that response that I shall not. As Members of the legislature, we are here to hold the Executive to account--that is what we are sent here for. Select Committee reports are all-party reports. How can the Leader of the House refuse a debate on the ground that it would be held for party-political advantage? Will she reconsider that now?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said. The hon. Gentleman asked me to arrange a debate not on the issue of an all-party report, but on the relationship between Select Committees and the Executive, on the spurious grounds--something that the Conservatives are continually alleging, on extremely flimsy evidence--that, in some way, the Government are in a different position in terms of being held to account by the Committees of the House. That is not the case, and it is not a matter that is worth spending the time of the House debating. That was the debate that I declined to have. I recognise that the Defence Select Committee report is serious. It will be looked at seriously by the Government, and we will produce our response in due course. However, a debate on the general relationship between Select Committees and the Executive is not merited at this time.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Particularly in the light of what the Leader of the House has said in response to the last two questions, will she seriously and urgently review the whole matter of the Sierra Leone report? That report touches on the relationships that exist between the legislature and the Executive, between Select Committees and the House, and between Ministers and civil servants. Given the gravity of its findings, is it not highly urgent that this House should examine, first, what one of its own Committees has said and, secondly, what that reveals about relationships between Ministers and civil servants? Those are important and urgent matters, and they do not deserve to be treated in the way that the Leader of the House appears to have treated them so far.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have said about the Foreign Affairs Committee report only that, at first reading, it seems to us to cover similar ground as the report by the Legg inquiry. However, the Government will produce a full response to both Select Committee reports in due course. That is the proper way to behave and the Government will behave properly.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement on the Government's handling of the meningitis outbreaks? What are the Government's strategies, in both the short term and long term, to deal with the outbreaks,
which have happened in south Wales, Scotland, the north-west of England, Southampton and elsewhere? We need to know what the short-term strategy is to ensure that organisations such as the Meningitis Research Foundation and the National Meningitis Trust get the proper resources so that they can fulfil their task of giving advice, guidance and counselling in areas where the outbreaks occur. There is also a need for long-term research to determine why outbreaks of meningitis in this country are at a 50-year high, and why the rate of incidence is three times as high as in the United States of America.
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, a special investigation, chaired by the relevant medical authorities, is under way. He asked for a debate about the strategy for tackling the outbreaks, but I am sorry to say that the evidence appears to show that the problem does not lend itself to a strategy.
Mr. Evans: I wanted to know about both the short term and the long term.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that, and those matters are being examined. The situation seems to change dramatically, and the cause of the disease is not well understood. That makes the problem particularly difficult, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government--and the whole House--entirely share the concern that he has expressed.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Can we have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss the Government's incompetence over the introduction of the working time regulations? As a result of those regulations, boys and girls who deliver newspapers will be eligible in law for up to fourweeks' paid leave--which one assumes was not the Government's intention. Is the right hon. Lady aware that the National Federation of Retail Newsagents fears that delivery will end as a consequence, and that up to 10,000 jobs will be lost?
Finally, the right hon. Lady is a highly experienced parliamentarian: will she concede that the regulations were introduced, without prior parliamentary scrutiny, under the auspices of the lost and not lamented right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? He gave minimum notice but caused maximum hassle for business. Had the regulations' introduction not been so clumsy, would not this unholy mess have been avoided?
Mrs. Beckett:
That would all be very interesting, but my understanding is that the working time regulations do not apply to paper boys and paper girls.
Mrs. Beckett:
I am simply saying that that is my understanding. I know that the matter has appeared in the press today, but I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that that is not a guide. If the regulations do not apply, the question of incompetence does not arise. The matter is being considered most carefully, but my understanding is that there has been a misunderstanding.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
The Leader of the House said that there will be debates the week after next
Mrs. Beckett:
It is self-evident that the Committees are not packed with poodles. My understanding is that the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces were directed at suggestions that there had been inadequate consultation. That is a different matter from the main substance of the report.
I entirely share the view of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that it is right and proper that Select Committee reports should be given the weight that they deserve. They should be properly handled in the House, and it would be wise if hon. Members on both sides, in all circumstances, bore strongly in mind the convention that Select Committee reports should not be leaked or commented on in advance by anyone.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
Given today's shocking news that hospital waiting lists rose in December by a further 12,000, will the right hon. Lady allow time for an early debate on that subject? She will recall, as many people do, that the Government made an early pledge on waiting lists. I carry a copy of their pledge card as a constant spur to my evangelisation of the case against the Government, and to remind me of how many promises they are breaking. A debate would allow the Government not only to acknowledge that an early pledge has turned into a broken promise--that much is clear--but to apologise for it to the House and to the people.
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman's remarks are entirely ill-placed. It is neither shocking nor surprising that there was, most unfortunately, a slight increase in the waiting lists in December. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has pointed out, if we had
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney):
The Leader of the House will be aware of affection for RAF Brize Norton, and of the important role that it plays in the life of the nation. She may also be aware that Ministry of Defence officials have given a briefing discussing its possible closure. However, she may not know that the Ministry of Defence was asked this morning to confirm or deny those reports, and officials said that they were not in a position to do so as discussion was taking place on whether RAF Brize Norton might close in future.
"would reject any criticism of the Government by the Committee."
Surely the normal convention is that Ministers say on the day of publication that proposals will be carefully considered. Our request is reasonable. Surely the Government do not want to be accused of packing Committees with pager poodles, but want independently minded Committees.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |