| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right in his observations. He is right, too, to identify the substantial implications of the size and scale of the holiday, and, obviously, when it arises. If there is any impact, we may look back on it as being due primarily to bad weather, a flu epidemic or something of that kind, rather than to the millennium bug. I assure my hon. Friend that that has been a huge factor in all the thought, preparation and planning.
One of the reasons why the millennium centre was launched yesterday by the Home Secretary and myself is the range of services that are engaged in dealing with
events over the millennium quite apart from the millennium bug. As an information centre, the millennium centre will be handling the flow of information on millennium events, not merely on millennium bug issues. We hope that that will mean a satisfactory flow of information to all who need to be kept informed.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale):
Is the Leader of the House in a position to estimate, however roughly, the percentage of the work on this problem that has been taken up with checking and testing, and the percentage taken up with fixing bugs that have been found? In other words, what amount of the work has turned out to be purely precautionary, albeit a necessary precaution?
Mrs. Beckett:
That is a very good question. I cannot make such an assessment at this moment. My gut feeling, from the very many reports to which I have listened, is that, on the whole, in most areas, fixing has been a fairly small fraction of the work, and that the great bulk of the work has been that of checking and identifying possible problems, contingency planning and so on. However, obviously no one could have known that without that checking and examination.
I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) about the operation of the millennium centre. Although the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) did not raise the matter with me, he may like to know that similar centres will operate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
I thank the President of the Council for her helpful statement, acknowledging in the process the hard work that is being done throughout the country to seek to ensure universal compliance by the due date. But, given that the right hon. Lady will recall from earlier exchanges in the House the widespread concern about the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry, a sponsoring Department, was a serious culprit and had a very dilatory approach to tackling those important matters, I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can give us an update today. Will she tell the House how the DTI has since performed--no doubt following a degree of nudging and encouragement from her--in absolute terms and relative to other Departments? Will she add something about the performance of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, about which there has been widespread concern for many months?
Mrs. Beckett:
I would not call it nudging; it would be more accurate to call it beating over the head. I understand that all Government Departments, including the DTI and the ECGD, have completed their work, tested their contingency plans and are up to speed.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
Last year the River Severn flooded, causing very serious damage, and this year it has already overflowed its banks. As I understand it, the countermeasure systems in the event of a possible failure have yet to be tested, and that is especially important for flood warning and the estimation of river levels. What contingency plans do the Government have?
Mrs. Beckett:
I understand that that work also is on target. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Mrs. Browning:
I remind the right hon. Lady that when she laid the September report in the Library, no countermeasures had been identified by the ECGD. They were due to be completed in October. Therefore they have yet to be identified as complete, let alone tested. I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would investigate that specifically.
Mrs. Beckett:
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. I have no briefing that suggests that there is any continuing problem with the ECGD, but she is right to raise the matter and I am grateful to her for doing so. I shall ensure that there is no continued problem.
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I tried to give you notice via the Clerks of this point of order, which arises on a simple matter.
Can you confirm that, as "Erskine May" says in several places, if, during a debate in the House that has not exceeded its limited time--when there is still plenty of time for the debate to continue--a Member who has previously spoken rises to speak again, he can do so with the leave of the House?
Madam Speaker:
The right hon. Gentleman is of course quite right in saying that a Member who wishes to make a second speech may do so by securing the leave of the House, with no single Member objecting. However, in my experience--I am sure that it is the experience of many Members--"Erskine May" is accurate in stating on page 375:
Sir Peter Emery:
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is most helpful to have had your ruling, but surely it is the House that makes the decision, not the Chair.
Madam Speaker:
It is the House that makes the decision, but may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to last evening's Hansard? I see that the Government Whip asked the leave of the House to withdraw the motion. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his great experience of procedure, one voice raised objecting to the withdrawal of the motion could well have led to a different situation.
Very often, when we come to the end of a debate, members are confused about procedure. It is important that they should understand the courses of action that are open.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was a spectator last night at those enticing events. I confide in you--obviously, if one wants to keep a secret, one expresses it in the House of Commons--that it was a source of misery to me, as I was settling down, awaiting a couple of hours of outstanding speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), that he did not have the opportunity to deliver that speech.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I am a new Member, and I seek clarification and guidance. Are you telling the House that if there had been a single objection to the request of the Government Whip to withdraw the motion, I would have had the succulent pleasure of listening to my right hon. Friend for a couple of hours?
Madam Speaker:
Indeed you would.
Sir Peter Emery:
May I make it quite clear that I had no intention of speaking for two hours?
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Allen.]
Madam Speaker:
I inform the House that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown):
In little more than a week, agriculture has been the focus of two debates in the House. That is right. It demonstrates the importance that the House attaches to these matters.
Today, I want to set out how the Government are helping the industry to prepare for the future by providing special measures for the short term, and by providing a framework for an efficient, forward-looking and modernised industry for the longer term.
Before I deal with that, I shall say something about the French beef ban and the Government's response. As well as being a clear breach of European Union law, the French import ban has hindered the resumption of our beef exports. The Government have been, at both official and ministerial level, in regular contact with the European Commission and the French Government, to let them know just how seriously we take the matter and to bring the problem to a swift resolution.
The European Union Scientific Steering Committee is meeting today to consider France's evidence for its continued import ban. I have looked at the evidence, and it contains nothing not already known to us or to the Commission. I therefore expect the steering committee to dismiss the French evidence.
1.38 pm
"It is very rare for a second speech to be allowed to a private Member other than the mover of a motion."
However, for all that, I know of the great interest that the right hon. Gentleman takes in such matters of procedure, and I am sorry that he was disappointed last evening. Having read Hansard carefully, I think that the Chair followed the current practice, whereby the House normally expects a Government winding-up speech to conclude a debate on a Government motion.
1.42 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |