| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is it intended that the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement next week on the ambiguity, or loophole, in the law relating to the donation of kidneys for transplant? Is it not totally unacceptable, in any circumstances, for racist conditions to be attached to such donations? What has occurred has caused a great deal of concern in the House and in the country. Moreover, it could lead to the imposing of religious conditions in, say, Northern Ireland, in regard to Catholics and Protestants. The Secretary of State has already expressed his dismay about what has happened. I hope that it will be possible for him to make a statement in the House very soon.
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, my right hon. Friend has already made clear how appalled he is--and I think the whole House is appalled--by what has
been reported. An investigation into how this came about was launched immediately, and we intend to ensure that it never happens again. As everyone has said, the setting of such conditions is unacceptable. I fear that I cannot tell my hon. Friend how soon the results of the investigation will be available, or whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in a position to make a statement before the recess; but I can assure him that the matter is being looked into, with a view to ensuring that this does not happen again.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Before every recess, there tends to be a big build-up of potential statements to the House. That is understandable and it is right. Obviously, while the House is sitting it should be given information if that is possible. Madam Speaker has, on a number of occasions, expressed concern about the way in which information is given to the House by Ministers, and how often--sadly--it appears to be pre-empted by statements made through the media, press conferences or other means.
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to one specific example, which causes great concern? In yesterday's debate, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
Will the Leader of the House urgently examine that practice, not only as it applies to Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports, but in the context of the general procedure for making statements to the House? Will she come back to the House within the next week to inform us of how she intends to ensure that the practice better serves the House, our constituents and the country?
Mrs. Beckett:
No, I am afraid not. I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but, as he made clear yesterday, it is not merely a matter of a statement being made, but the content of the statement and the impact of it. As he also pointed out yesterday, the practice he followed is the one that has been identified by successive Governments as being the best way through that difficult area. Indeed, it has been followed by successive Governments for good reason.
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South):
As I am a delegate from this House to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, may I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an urgent debate--hopefully before the new Session of Parliament in November, if not before the recess--on the future of the WEU? She will be aware that the Cologne summit resulted in the suggestion that certain of the institutions of the WEU should be folded into the second pillar of the European Union in a way that foresees
Mrs. Beckett:
I am aware of my hon. Friend's long and distinguished service with the WEU. As he says, an important proposal has been made that would have considerable future impact. I am not sure that I can undertake to find time for such a debate before the recess, although I hear what he says about wanting to explore the implications before the parliamentary Session closes. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who I know will share my hon. Friend's concern.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
Of the 37 questions for Question Time today, only one on higher education won through. Will the Leader of the House contemplate an early debate on higher education, so that we do not give that most important sector of our society the impression that the House is neglecting it?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am not sure that I can find time for such a debate in the near future. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view--I am sure that the House does too--that it is a pity that, sometimes, the unintended effects of our random selection procedure mean that an area of discussion does not get its fair share of attention. However, he will have noted that we have identified time for Opposition days, so perhaps he will lobby his right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House on that subject.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax):
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have today announced a ban on the use of lindane, a powerful insecticide used in farming to treat seeds? She will be aware of the campaign against the use of that carcinogenic substance, which can cause all sorts of problems, including hormone disruption, nervous system damage and birth defects.
There is also growing evidence linking lindane exposure to increased incidence of breast cancer. I congratulate the Government on their action, but will the Secretary of State come to the House next week to make a formal announcement of the ban so that we can raise issues pertaining to it?
Mrs. Beckett:
I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in and campaigned on that matter, as have others in the House, for a very long time, and I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I do not anticipate that there will be, in the near future, a particular debate in which that issue can be aired. However, I am mindful that the pre-recess debates will take place, and my hon. Friend may be fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair on that occasion.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
I appreciate that next week there will be a lot of business affecting Northern Ireland, but can we have an urgent debate on the
That is a serious matter and one that we are aware of in my constituency, where some years ago I offered an olive branch to those from the Lower Ormeau, as they call themselves, but it was immediately rejected. They constantly say that nobody wants to talk to them, but they, like those in Portadown, have also refused to talk.
Mrs. Beckett:
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on that matter, although I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about it. I recognise that there will always be difficulty about the role of the Parades Commission, which has an extremely difficult job that it strives to discharge impartially. It is, of course, a key part of its role to try to get both parties to reach an accommodation--I recognise that the hon. Gentleman referred to such efforts a moment ago--and it is only when they do not do so that the commission has to step in. When such a body operates in those circumstances, where there has already been a failure to agree, its role is bound to be a difficult one, and it is bound to come under criticism, as it does on occasion, from both sides.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Was my right hon. Friend being deliberately vague about the Opposition day? I got the impression that the Tories have not been able to come up with a subject for their Opposition day.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Nonsense.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
Spoilt for choice.
"when an MMC report contains commercially sensitive information, it is not the subject of a statement to the House, since the City would have notice of such a statement's being made and that might not be appropriate. That practice has been adopted by successive Governments."--[Official Report, 7 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 1091.]
That is patent nonsense, because the City and everyone else was given notice that a statement was to be made by means of a planted question on the Order Paper on Tuesday, so they had far more notice that the report was to be released. The result of the present practice is that the City is given more information in advance than is necessary, because a statement is advertised to the House only at 1 o'clock, which gives us extremely short notice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |