| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: Although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my Department, I point out that we have a lighter administrative work load than the Departments of some of my colleagues. I have mixed feelings on the matter. Of course the House must have proper and prompt replies to Members' questions. However, I confess to the House--perhaps I should not--that when I was in opposition, I never gave any thought to the realism of the day that I named in my questions. I merely bunged down the date on which I wanted an answer to my most urgent question. I suspect that most Members do the same--it is perfectly reasonable that they should.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some questions are of considerable complexity and it may take time for Ministers to answer them as accurately and fully as they can. I understand his concern, but delays are understandable, particularly for Departments that have a heavy work load and where accuracy is essential, such as the Treasury and the DTI. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hold Ministers to account for the delivery of their answers, all I can suggest is that when he tables questions he might give a little more thought to how long it may take to answer them. I would not blame him if he did not, because I never did.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North):
I recognise that security matters are not usually debated on the Floor of the House, but will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the grave allegations in the editorial of the Scottish National party's monthly newsletter that MI5 has infiltrated the SNP with agents provocateurs to cause damage and discredit to the party? Before dismissing those allegations as the fantasies of the James Bond party, we should consider the very real evidence that the SNP is being undermined from within, if only by its leader, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
Mrs. Beckett:
I freely confess to my hon. Friend that I was not familiar with that concern. I should have thought that the SNP was only too grateful to get new members--but as an excuse for poor performance, its ingenuity makes one gasp.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Has the Leader of the House yet studied, and can we have an early debate on, early-day motion 560:
[That this House reasserts the importance of maintaining the integrity and political impartiality of the BBC; recognises the contribution made by Mr. Greg Dyke to the broadcasting industry; believes, however, that his substantial financial donations to the Labour Party render him inappropriate to be the next Director General of the BBC; and is confident that, in making this appointment, the BBC Governors will be conscious of the need to avoid accusations of political bias or cronyism.]
It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and concerns the appointment of the next Director-General of the BBC.
Moreover, is the right hon. Lady aware of the widespread opinion within the House and outside that in the name of retaining the BBC's integrity and impartiality, Mr. Greg Dyke, notwithstanding his significant contribution to British broadcasting, would be a most unsuitable occupant of that high office, in view of his substantial financial donations over time to the Labour party? Does the right hon. Lady agree that to avoid charges of bias and cronyism and to retain public confidence, the BBC governors should properly take that widespread concern into account in making their judgment?
Mrs. Beckett:
First, I remind the hon. Gentleman of where he ended up--that it is not the Government but the BBC board of governors that makes this appointment.
As for the notion that anyone who has ever given money to the Labour party should be debarred from holding public office, I can only say that if such a principle had applied during the period of office of the previous Government, the public service would have been denuded of many appointments.
Ms Hazel Blears (Salford):
Could my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on public transport, particularly in inner-city areas? In Salford last week, First Bus, a major bus company, withdrew services unilaterally, leaving pensioners and working people stranded at bus stops. The alleged reason was attacks by young people on buses. Clearly it is important that buses and drivers must be protected, but in inner-city areas very few people have access to private transport--so keeping the buses running is crucial to the well-being of such communities. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am sorry to learn of the difficulties that her constituents experienced. On Tuesday, there will be tabling of Department of Trade and Industry questions. I have no doubt that through that and other ways my hon. Friend will find an opportunity to raise the matter. I fear that I cannot promise her an early debate.
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam):
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 562:
[That this House notes the issuing of Health Service Circular 1999/999 on the multiple sclerosis drug Beta Interferon; believes that this circular represents a further withdrawal from the Government's pledge of universal care for those that need it; finds the circular pre-empts proper consideration by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and opposes any further moves to ration drugs available on the NHS on grounds of cost rather than clinical effectiveness.]
The motion relates to the provision of beta interferon for the treatment and alleviation of multiple sclerosis. The Government have just issued new guidance to health authorities on the rationing of this drug. Why is it that we have not yet had a statement from the Secretary of State for Health, explaining why he has issued fresh guidance that has pre-empted the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which was meant to be giving guidance to health authorities so that they could take real decisions about the clinical effectiveness of beta interferon--rather than the Government, as it seems,
dictating that decisions should be based upon cost-effectiveness, not clinical effectiveness? May we have a statement?
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman is a little ahead of himself. He says that the Department of Health has issued guidance. My understanding is that it has not. It may well be that someone has leaked a draft. Sadly, these things happen from time to time. I can only say that, as I understand it, a draft for guidance is being prepared. There have been some concerns about how it might be interpreted and the Department of Health is giving further consideration to how it might be clarified to meet those concerns. It has deferred issuing any guidance in the meantime, but it hopes to do so as soon as possible. If the hon. Gentleman still has concerns about the matter when he has seen the actual guidance, he will no doubt try to raise the matter again.
Angela Smith (Basildon):
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 566:
[That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to tackling global warming but notes that without further measures the United Kingdom is unlikely to reach its targets for reductions in greenhousegas emissions; recognises that environmentally-benign refrigerants with low global-warming potential and significant energy-saving potential are not available for all refrigerant applications; and therefore urges the Government to introduce a system to incentivise a switch to such refrigerants, thus making a major contribution to filling the gap in policy on greenhouse gases.]
The motion relates to environmentally benign refrigerants--or friendly fridges, as we have called the relevant campaign. The motion draws the attention of the House to the problems of global warming. One of the problems is that in switching refrigerants from chlorofluorocarbons to hydrofluorocarbons we are reducing quite significantly, and very properly, the problems of the ozone layer, but the HFCs that are being used are causing severe problems with global warming. They are about 2,000 times worse than carbon monoxide. There are alternatives, and we welcome the Government's commitment to reducing global warming. However, we think that further action could be taken. I would like the Government to consider incentivising a switch to alternatives. I ask for an early debate on this issue in view of its importance.
Mrs. Beckett:
I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the matter. However, I can tell her that the Government are developing a new climate change programme. Within that, we will be seeking to arrive at a balanced package of policies and measures covering all sectors and all gases. The problem, which given her remarks, my hon. Friend clearly appreciates, is the disadvantages of different measures. It is important to achieve a balance.
It is our intention to issue a draft programme for consultation later this year, and my hon. Friend may wish to return to the matter then. I had not previously heard the description "friendly fridges". People are always talking about new machines that will speak to us, so it opens up a rather endearing prospect.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Although the right hon. Lady is committed to a more structured
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |