| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
Considered; to be read the Third time.
Drug-testing Programmes
1. Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): What initiatives have been taken to increase the number of United Kingdom companies operating routine drug-testing programmes. [75356]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Government encourage individual employers to act in accordance with guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive, "Drug Misuse at Work", copies of which are in the Library of the House.
Mrs. Winterton: It is estimated that only about 10 per cent. of companies in the United Kingdom have drug-testing programmes. Will the Government therefore encourage, through organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors, a zero tolerance policy in regard to drugs in the workplace? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although drug testing is of course vital in the case of jobs to which safety is critical, it should be extended to more sectors to prevent deterioration in work performance, reduce damage to the health of employees and preserve the jobs and careers of those employees?
Dr. Cunningham: As I have said, the Government encourage employers to act on the HSE guidance, which was launched by the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator. As for a policy of zero tolerance, we shall continue to urge all employers to follow the guidance; but, ultimately, it is a matter for them. We have no plans to take statutory powers enabling us to insist that they do so.
Better Regulation Task Force
2. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): If he will make a statement on the work of the better regulation task force. [75357]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The better regulation task force is providing valuable advice. So far, it has published five major reports, and it will publish a further four over the next three months.
Mr. Bercow: Given that British companies are now expected to swim in a sea of regulation deeper and more hazardous than any that they previously have had to negotiate, and given that the British food industry alone now faces extra regulatory costs of £497 million imposed by the Government, will the Minister urge all his ministerial colleagues to study the United States Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996, and then to heed the lessons of that crucial legislation?
Mr. Kilfoyle: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has shown his ignorance of what is actually
happening in government. He is obviously not aware of the work that is done not only by the better regulation task force, but by the better regulation unit--or of the work that we do to help businesses, small and large, by means of initiatives such as the access business initiative and the outstanding initiative announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which was designed to focus on the needs of small business.
Business--and, not least, his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen)--would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman gave some credit to the Government's attempts to support business, rather than denigrating them. They might even enlighten the hon. Gentleman about what business is actually doing, which bears no relation to his prejudiced view.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East):
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that the better regulation task force is doing. Last July, it published an excellent guidance document for Ministers, recommending eight weeks as the minimum period for consultation on Government regulations. Is my hon. Friend's section of the Cabinet Office monitoring whether that good advice is followed? I ask because, over the busy Christmas period, the Medicines Control Agency issued an important regulation, which is causing a good deal of controversy, called MLX 249. Last Wednesday, in an Adjournment debate, we were told that the MCA's consultation period was six to eight weeks.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
We have issued guidance, and we are monitoring whether it is followed. I should add that it is advice, not prescriptive guidance. However, my hon. Friend's comments will be brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister.
3. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
What recent representations he has received concerning the forthcoming White Paper on the modernisation of government. [75358]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham):
I have most recently had meetings with the Council of Civil Service Unions, the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council.
Mr. Robathan:
We have been waiting for that White Paper for some time. What is the real desire for so-called modernisation?
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
I can tell my hon. Friend.
Mr. Robathan:
I thank my hon. Friend.
There is a lot of talk about "modernising Britain", but what exactly does the Minister mean by that? Although we certainly appreciate that the civil service should be "joined up"--to use the terminology of the day--how will the establishment of regional development agencies impact on his own civil servants? No one has ever written to me about regional development agencies. Perhaps the
right hon. Gentleman will tell us how many of his own constituents have written to him in the past 20 years asking for such agencies.
Dr. Cunningham:
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's question was on modernising government, or merely a little ramble. He will not have to wait very much longer for us to publish the White Paper; then he will see the answers for himself.
Mr. John Healey (Wentworth):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are RATs in the Rotherham council housing and council tax benefits office? Remote access terminals were installed last month and paid for by central Government, allowing council officers to track pensioners entitled to income support regardless of whether they claim support at the Benefits Agency. Does he agree that the next logical step would be to enable those council officers not only to monitor the progress of claims at the Benefits Agency, but to complete income support claims on behalf of those pensioners? Will he give some assurance that the White Paper on modernising government will consider exactly that type of joined-up government service delivery?
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire):
Are not the Government's claims to be a modern and effective Administration somewhat undermined by the repeated delays in publishing the White Paper on better government, which is now over a year late? Will he assure us that the wait will have been worth while? If one of the White Paper's themes is to be joined-up government and a more coherent approach to the needs of the individual, will that approach not be injured by devolution, and indeed by regional government, leading to the fragmentation of both policy and service provision--with different policies and different approaches at different levels? Will the Government's ill-thought-out constitutional provisions not pull in the opposite direction to better government?
Dr. Cunningham:
It is difficult to know where the Opposition stand on devolution. I thought that the Conservative party in Scotland had now accepted that devolution was a reality, and that it would work for success in the Scottish Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman really should make it clear where he stands. Apparently, he has taken a different view on the issue from that of the Leader of the Opposition; but that is not new for Opposition Front Benchers, as so many of his colleagues take a different view.
The White Paper will be published soon. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it will be about making life better for people, not about the convenience of civil servants or making life easier for Ministers. Regional development agencies are about joining up government, not about dislocating it.
4. Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South):
What assessment he has made of (a) the quality and (b) the
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham):
Independent expert committees are in place to ensure that the Government receive the best possible scientific advice on those issues.
Mr. Mullin:
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is an unhappy tradition of senior civil servants, on retirement, taking up posts with the very commercial interests on whose activities they were supposed to be advising the Government impartially. The example of Sir Walter Marshall and nuclear power springs to mind, but I expect that one could think of others. How confident is my right hon. Friend that some of those who are advising the Government on GM foods will not end up working for the very vested interests whose activities they are supposed to be impartially overseeing?
Dr. Cunningham:
I was about to say that my hon. Friend's crystal ball was at least as good as mine, but, on reflection, history shows that his is much better than mine, because he has been able to see some things long before the rest of us. Of course, anyone retiring from the Government service has to abide by the rules laid down by the Cabinet Secretary. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be done in future.
My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to lay another ghost to rest. It is not true that the Government have reached or are seeking any secret deal with the industries on genetically modified foods or crops.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Conservative party has been keen for safe genetically modified foods to be allowed to be grown in the United Kingdom, but only after the proper tests have been carried out. Are the Government ready to admit that they made a monumental error in trying to go against the advice of an environmental committee to have a three-year moratorium on putting in commercial crops? Surely ignoring such advice is undermining people's trust in the Government and in science.
Dr. Cunningham:
The hon. Gentleman is confused. The Government have not licensed any crops for commercial development in this country. The only genetically modified foods that are on sale in this country were licensed by the Government of which he was a supporter. The real policy is that we are moving to the farm and field testing of genetically modified crops. Only when we are satisfied with those tests will we move to the next stage.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
I understand that a written answer is to be given this afternoon on the labelling of genetically modified foods. Did the Minister see the comments on Monday last week of Professor Philip James of the Rowett research institute to the Select Committee on Science and Technology that the issue of labelling would prove to be irrelevant because it was increasingly difficult to guarantee the segregation of genetically modified ingredients? Would the Minister care to comment?
Dr. Cunningham:
I do not agree with Professor James on that issue. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |