| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): He is.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but he is talking through the back of his neck. He should read the letter, the first line of which says:
- "I do not see a problem here".
Mrs. Beckett: Well, if the hon. Gentleman has the letter, I suggest that he reads it and digests its contents. I have read it all, and it clearly says that there is no dispute about the science and with the Government's position.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked about referring the matter to the royal commission, but of course the Science and Technology Select Committee has reported on the matter this week, and we are studying all the reports and considering the recommendations. However, I believe that the last thing that any of us wants to do is to kick into the long grass a sensible debate on the science of this matter, which is more than necessary and becomes more necessary with every day that misleading statements are made by the various campaigners on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to guarantee a statement on the freedom of information Bill, and I do so. I can also tell him that I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends, as always, to explain with absolute clarity the position that the Government are taking and why he has reached his decisions.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to take account of the issue of the principles of open government with regard to EU policy and so on. To the extent that that is within this Government's control, we do so.
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South):
Is my right hon. Friend aware of increasing speculation in the United Kingdom and in other countries in Europe about the future of the Western European Union, especially the rumour that it might be integrated into the European Union? Does she accept that that issue should be debated in the House? She may argue that there are two opportunities in the next two parliamentary weeks to do so, but I urge her to hold a special debate so that we may debate that specific issue and the wider issue of European security.
Mrs. Beckett:
I have a faint recollection of having heard rumours to that effect from time to time over the years, which have always turned out to be unfounded press speculation. I fear that I cannot offer my hon. Friend a special debate on the matter, although I understand its importance. However, I draw to his attention the fact that there is to be a debate on the European Union next Tuesday. It will focus on the pre-Cologne Council, but there is no reason why the matters raised by my hon. Friend may not be relevant--subject to Madam Speaker's opinion. In addition, I have just announced that there is to be a debate on defence in the world just after the recess, so that might provide another opportunity to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
As we enter the final straight towards the millennium, we realise that some people are apparently less well prepared than they should be in terms of the millennium bug. When that is pointed out, however, they say that that criticism is based on out-of-date information. Would the Leader of the House therefore contemplate accelerating the frequency of the admirable reports that she gives to the House, so that unnecessary apprehensions are not created?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have every intention of doing so. The next statement is due in the relatively near future, and I intend thereafter to make monthly updating statements to the House.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase):
My right hon. Friend will know that, over the years, hon. Members from both sides of the House have asked whether, when statements are made, we might have the text a little earlier in the day--perhaps by noon on the day that the statement is to be made--so that questions can be more focused and more informed. Would not the statement on freedom of information be exactly the right occasion on which to institute such a new procedure?
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I have slight reservations, although obviously it
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on national health service trust management? I do not know whether she is aware that three non-executive directors of the Guild health care trust in Preston exposed mismanagement of that trust by the chief executive, which was brought to light in an independent report entitled, "The Care and Treatment of Daniel Holden." The chief executive was suspended by the trust board. There was a further investigation, by an independent panel, which endorsed that action and confirmed that the trust had been mismanaged. The trust was told, via the regional office, by the Secretary of State for Health, that the three non-executive directors should resign, and that, if they did not, they would be sacked to give the trust a fresh start.
Madam Speaker:
A question, please.
Mr. Evans:
Yes, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the three non-executive directors were sacked. My great fear--I wonder whether the Leader of the House agrees--is that the morale of non-executive directors throughout the country will be affected by that decision.
Mrs. Beckett:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the morale of non-executive directors but, to be honest, I do not see why that should be affected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it plain at a much earlier stage that he felt that, sadly, it was not in the interests of the trust or of the health service as a whole for the members of the previous team to stay in post. He invited them to resign, and they were not willing to do so. These are clearly special circumstances and we must all hope that they are unique.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), the Leader of the House said that not very much is known about the tragic hospital bombing in Belgrade. If there is such a lack of information, should not bombing stop, or should not there at least be a pause? In particular, could not a statement be made on Monday, when a little more will be known about the facts?
Mrs. Beckett:
The House understands my hon. Friend's strong views on this matter and I accept that he is saying that, on those grounds and on this occasion, there should be a pause in the bombing. I simply say to him, however, that there are different views on it, which are held by people in all good conscience, and draw to his attention what I understand to be the recent remarks of the Catholic Archbishop of Belgrade, who said that any pause in NATO action would be taken by President Milosevic as a sign of weakness.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
A moment ago, the Leader of the House was dismissive of the request made by my
The sacked non-executive directors, who were acting in their capacity as whistleblowers on mismanagement, feel that their circumstances draw attention to the role of non-executive directors who raise certain issues and find themselves in the firing line of the Secretary of State. We need a statement urgently to clarify that matter.
Mrs. Beckett:
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, no doubt inadvertently, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not ask for a debate on that specific matter? He did not get round to that. I am afraid that I cannot find time for an extra and specific debate, but I can of course draw to his attention the fact that there is a pre-recess debate on Wednesday, in which any matter can be raised.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North):
In view of the publication earlier this week of the long-awaited and excellent White Paper on sustainable development--which has profound implications for Government policy on both social exclusion and environmental protection--can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this issue in the near future, particularly as no questions have been asked in the House, no Government statements have been made on it and there has been very little interest in the media?
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend is right to say that the White Paper will have profound implications, and it also merits most careful and thorough consideration and debate. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future, although, again, he may be able to raise the matter in the pre-recess debate and I am sure that the House will return to it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |