| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
International Monetary Fund
13. Barbara Follett (Stevenage): What representations he has made concerning the composition of the board of the IMF. [97002]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government have not made any representations concerning the composition of the board of the IMF.
Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome her to her new post. Is she aware that in September the IMF replaced its much maligned enhanced structural adjustment facility, which one non-governmental organisation described as treatment by asphyxiation, with its new poverty reduction and growth programme? Will she and her ministerial colleagues do
all that they can to ensure that that is not only a name change, but that poverty reduction is central in future IMF interventions in developing countries?
Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in that area as a member of the Select Committee on International Development. I know how seriously she takes those issues and that she will appreciate how seriously my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury team take them, too. The poverty reduction and growth facility replacement programmes for the IMF enhanced structural adjustment facility will bring about a big improvement in the work that can be done and will ensure that the IMF and the World Bank work together more closely. It will also emphasise country ownership and focus much more strongly on poverty, with the aim of achieving poverty eradication goals that are set in the international development targets. I know that that will be most welcome.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle): Will the Economic Secretary try to get the Chancellor to explain how it came about that, within hours of his election as chairman of its key committee, the IMF announced that it would after all not be selling any of its gold through the market?
Does the Chancellor remember that whenever I suggested to him earlier in the year that it was not a good way of helping poor countries for the IMF to sell its gold through the market, he got rather cross with me and denounced me for not being genuinely interested in helping them? What was it that led him eventually to conclude that I had been right and that he had been wrong?
Miss Johnson:
I do not know what led the hon. Gentleman to come to that remarkable conclusion. I am disappointed, in that he ought to be congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the key role that he will be playing in those arenas as a result of taking over the committee. He ought also to be complimenting the Government on the relationship between the sale of gold and our ability to deal with poverty-stricken countries and the highly indebted poor countries issue. We have made massive progress, and the gold sales have contributed to that. Congratulations are due when real achievements are made by the Government in key areas.
Points of Order
12.31 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, at column 1122 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that Britain must choose between taking France to court for its illegal ban on British beef and trying to persuade France to lift it. As the Government's attempts at persuasion have now collapsed in utter failure, and as, even in the last hour, British officials have been summoned to Brussels--no doubt to prepare for yet more unjustified concessions--can you tell the House whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has requested permission to make a statement about this devastating blow to his whole strategy?
Madam Speaker: I have had no request from the Minister to make a statement today.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed early-day motion 1007, condemning the Chancellor for the serious error that he made when addressing the House on Tuesday. Have you had any request from the Chancellor to make a personal statement so that he can correct what is a serious, but no doubt inadvertent, error?
Madam Speaker: I have seen the early-day motion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I have not been told by the Chancellor that he is seeking to make a statement.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was widely trailed on the wireless this morning that the Home Secretary would today be making clear his intentions with respect to legislation on the future of hunting. Have you had any notice from the Home Secretary that he is seeking to make a statement? If you have not, is it within your competence to detail the runner on the Treasury Bench to fetch the Home Secretary, since we have so much time between now and seven o'clock?
Madam Speaker: I am afraid that I do not have the authority to order a Minister to come here, and I am not aware that any such statement is being made.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a defender of the rights of all Members of this House, you will recall that there was a vote in November 1997 in which 411 Members of this House expressed the opinion that foxhunting is animal abuse and should be banned. Can we have an assurance that, in the next Session of Parliament, you will ensure that there is a full debate, so that all hon. Members can express that view again?
Madam Speaker: We are now getting into bogus points of order, and there will be no more.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting,
1. the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received; and
2. if the House has completed its consideration of any Messages received from the Lords and the Lords have adjourned their sitting, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.--[Mr. Allen.]
12.34 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): The motion is important because it sets out the relationship between another place and this House on a crucial but rather sad day, which may be the last of the Session--that remains to be seen. The motion refers to "Messages from the Lords" and to the fact that you, Madam Speaker, may adjourn the House. Before you can make that decision, you must consider the possibility that other matters may intervene. To follow on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) a moment ago, you may be approached before the House adjourns by Ministers who want to make a statement. Beef on the bone and beef imports to France are subjects about which a Minister might want to make a statement and clarify the Government's position.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Does my right hon. Friend agree that foxhunting might also merit a statement at this point in the week? Does he agree that the Home Secretary might have cried off until now because such a statement would prove controversial for one side or the other?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. Madam Speaker may wish to postpone the Adjournment of the House, which is the subject of the motion, to give the Home Secretary time to prepare a statement on foxhunting. The statement has been widely trailed but, so far, we have had no opportunity to hear it. Therefore, it would be appropriate to postpone the Adjournment of the House to give the Home Secretary time to clarify the Government's position.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does my right hon. Friend agree that Madam Speaker might receive a request from the Chancellor to deal with the disgraceful error to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred, or a request from the Prime Minister to apologise for his appalling abuse of Question Time yesterday, when he behaved like a bad vaudeville ham actor?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend puts those points so much better than I could. I propose to deal with that subject later, strictly in the context of the Adjournment of the House, which is the subject of the motion.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): After my right hon. Friend has fully dealt with the good interventions of my hon. Friends, will he return to the possibility of a statement, before the Adjournment of the House, on the French attitude to beef? Does he agree that the House may also wish to hear a statement about the
Government's view on the German attitude to beef, and the likelihood that, after the French have agreed to accept British beef, the Germans will continue to hold out? Ministers should make a statement on the steps that they are taking about Germany.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It is not too late for the House to deal with those matters. Today is a sitting day. The House must make a judgment, in the context of the motion, on whether it is appropriate to adjourn earlier or later, given the sort of developments that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |