| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to identify the continuing problem involving claims at the lower levels, especially claims by pensioners. Like me, he has deplored it for a long time. The Government try to encourage take-up, and will continue to do so: indeed, the minimum income guarantee, which is earnings-linked, is intended to encourage pensioners to claim.
I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. As he will know, the legislation provides for payment to be backdated to the point at which the claim was made. My hon. Friend will also know that the problem has been going on for decades, and was not solved or even tackled by the Conservatives. It would be difficult to set a precedent by backdating payment to the point at which a claim might have been made. Nevertheless, I endorse my hon. Friend's basic point, which is that many people--the oldest, the frailest and those in most need of financial support--remain reluctant to claim. It is the responsibility of all Members to do all that we can to encourage them to do so.
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park):
In a week in which talks with Pakistan about the arms trade have resumed and the embargo on the arms trade with Indonesia--which is very unstable--has been lifted, and on a day on which we have heard that Hawk jets are to be sold to Zimbabwe, which is engaged in a severe civil war throughout sub-Saharan Africa, it is obvious that the Government have dropped the ethical dimension to their foreign policy. Can we please have an urgent debate on the effect of the arms trade on foreign policy?
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Lady has drawn on a number of examples. She will know that the embargo on arms sales to Indonesia was for a fixed period, and has expired rather than being specifically lifted. Indeed, it was introduced largely on our initiative following the problems in East Timor.
I do not accept that the Government have abandoned an ethical dimension to their foreign policy. In comparison with those who accept that there is legitimacy
in some arms sales, those who oppose all arms sales are, in a sense, on an easy wicket. There will always be matters of difficulty and dispute.
I fear that I cannot promise the hon. Lady an urgent statement, but I will draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet):
As my right hon. Friend knows, we should have been discussing the Electronic Communications Bill this afternoon. We shall now be doing that next week, thanks to the disgraceful behaviour of the lunatic fringe on the Conservative Benches. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government still intend the legislation to be the first Act of the new millennium? If so, can she also assure me that she will deploy all the tools that the Government have at their disposal to ensure that the Bill makes progress next week?
Mrs. Beckett:
The Government have every intention of ensuring that the Bill makes progress next week. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that it is important legislation and not party politically controversial. Therefore, we are all entitled to hope that it will reach the statute book in the ordinary way. As to whether it will be the first Act of the millennium, I am afraid that I have not had the opportunity to check.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
May I urge the Leader of the House to have a two-day debate on defence the week after next on the Tuesday and Wednesday, which in the current programme remain fallow? If she does not hold an early debate on defence, the view that is prevalent in the country that the Government are not interested in defence, with our troops living in tents in Kosovo and the Royal Air Force some 20 per cent. short of fighter pilots, will be heightened.
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman's last point is particularly extraordinary as it takes more than a couple of years to train a fighter pilot, so, if there is a fighter pilot shortage, the blame cannot be laid at the door of the present Government. [Interruption.] It was not us. That is a simple fact.
The hon. Gentleman asks for a two-day debate next week. I cannot undertake to provide time for that next week, although I certainly take on board his remarks. The Government are conscious of the need to find time for the defence debates. It is untrue that there is no interest. Indeed, it is perhaps because rather too much interest was taken in, for example, the defence White Paper that it came in late.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. We must move on.
Mr. Secretary Byers, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Darling and Mrs. Helen Liddell, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment and functions of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, the Telecommunications Authority, the Telecommunications Consumer Council, the Water Advisory Panel and the Consumer Council for Water; to amend the legislation regulating the telecommunications, gas, electricity and water industries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory Notes to be printed [Bill 49].
Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate and report to Parliament on the costs and benefits of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January, and to be printed [Bill 50].
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I wonder whether you, or Madam Speaker, have received any indication from the Prime Minister that he intends to come to the House to make a statement to clear up the confusion following his statement on the health service and its contradiction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not important that the House should learn whether there is even a semblance of coherence in Government health policy sooner rather than later?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
That is not a point of order. We have had no notification from the Prime Minister.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About five or six of us have waited 40 minutes to put a business question--in my case, to follow up on vibration white finger, which was raised last week. Why were questions on the business statement cut short?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman knows far better than me that, when we finish a statement and go on to the main business, is at the discretion of the Chair.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the news in today's papers of £10 billion-worth of extra burdens on local businesses, I was wondering whether you had received a report that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was to make an emergency statement to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I have not received such a request.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to column 945 in the Official Report of 19 January, where your colleague, the Chairman of Ways and Means, ruled that there had been no filibustering during the proceedings and debate? May I also draw your attention to the fact that on "Yesterday in Parliament" this morning, it was asserted as a statement of fact by a BBC correspondent that there had been filibustering? Is that not an intolerable misrepresentation of what happened in the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is certainly not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take it up with the BBC.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien):
I beg to move,
1.42 pm
1.44 pm
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill--
Yesterday, a handful of Conservative Members delayed parliamentary business on the Representation of the People Bill, not because they really objected to the Bill, but because they wanted to avoid debating the Fur
Farming (Prohibition) Bill. They were reluctant to argue their case on that Bill because their party was divided and the opinions of Conservative Back Benchers were out of touch with those of the country. The Representation of the People Bill was disrupted because of their moral cowardice on another Bill.
1. The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Motion.
2.--(1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)--
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
(2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
3. Proceedings under paragraph 2 above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
4. If at this day's sitting proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings on the Bill are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill.
5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the Bill.
6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of the proceedings on this Motion or on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |