| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): May we have an early debate, in Government time, on regional aid to the British car industry? Does the Leader of the House agree that such a debate would be an ideal opportunity for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to explain to the House when he will be able to produce a regional aid map that is acceptable to his masters in the European Commission in Brussels, or simply to own up to the House that for all his charm and affability, he is not up to the job of Secretary of State and will speedily make way for someone who is?
Mrs. Beckett: Not only is it nonsense to suggest that my right hon. Friend is not extremely successful and effective in the post of Secretary of State, where he is doing a good job, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has served in the job for longer than any of his 15 predecessors.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Opposition Members sympathise with the right hon. Lady, who is obviously still suffering from the effects of her severe cold, but at least it gave her the advantage of being able not to be present to hear the dismal performance of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry commenting on Rover. She will not therefore have heard him, when he was challenged over his refusal to make a statement to the House on this crucial matter, say by way of an excuse that he was evidently taking it seriously and that was why he was answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
Does the right hon. Lady accept that it is the duty of Ministers to answer the questions of those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be drawn high up in the ballot, and that it simply will not do to exhibit the cowardice shown by the Secretary of State and, when a statement on a crucial matter is evidently required, to shelter behind the fact that my hon. Friend was fortunate enough to think of the question in advance and to come top of the ballot? [Interruption.]
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), as I have said before, is a very good guide in these matters, and when he says that the Conservative party failed to lay a glove on the Secretary of State, I believe him.
It is not helpful to the situation at Longbridge or to the interests of workers in the west midlands for Conservative Members to exploit the matter in the way that they are doing. It is perfectly legitimate for them to raise concerns, ask questions and criticise the Government as they choose, but they should have more regard for the interests of the car industry and the west midlands, and a little less for the interests of their own party.
As for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showing anything other than great devotion to duty, I remind the hon. Gentleman of how frequently my right hon. Friend and other Ministers such as the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities have been to Longbridge and talked to the work force and the management. Not only is that sensible, but I fear that it is in sharp contrast to the record of Secretaries of State in the previous Government.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury):
I listened carefully to the earlier answer from the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I am sure that the whole House will be deeply troubled by the appalling situation in Zimbabwe, the threat to farmers and the disregard for the rule of law by the increasingly despotic Mr. Mugabe. The House will be equally disturbed by the equivocal utterances of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), especially on the radio this morning rather than in the House. Is it not about time that we had a full day's debate to discuss the urgent question of the suspension or abeyance of Zimbabwe's membership of the Commonwealth, and to express our grave concern about what is going on in that country?
Mrs. Beckett:
I did not hear my hon. Friend this morning, but I have heard him in recent days being extremely robust about our concerns about the behaviour of the Government of Zimbabwe. There will be oral questions to the Foreign Secretary on 11 April. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the purposes of the experiment in Westminster Hall was to provide more time, in particular, for more specialist foreign affairs debates, rather than debates that might range throughout the world. I recommend such opportunities to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier this morning, the social exclusion unit of the Cabinet Office published an important report on anti-social behaviour and policy measures to address that issue. Ministers were appearing in television and radio broadcasts throughout the morning to discuss the issue. Despite that, no copies of the report were made available in the Vote Office until 12 noon. They appeared only after a great deal of pressure and frequent reminders.
When I entered the Chamber about 45 minutes ago, the Library had just told me that it had yet to receive a copy of the report. I regard this as a deplorable breach of the normal courtesies of the House. It demonstrates a disdain on the part of Ministers for the rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House to know the contents of a Government report and Ministers' policy proposals. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to exercise whatever influence is available to you to ensure that there is no repetition of this sort of behaviour.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman was thoughtful enough to give me a little notice of his point of order. That was helpful because I was able to ascertain that the instructions about the document, which were given by one Department to another, were to my mind perfectly clear. Unfortunately, the receiving end did not find them quite so clear. I hope that, as a result of my actions over the past hour, what the hon. Gentleman has described will not occur again.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In her response to my business question a few moments ago, the Leader of the House suggested that I had given erroneous information to the Chamber. In fact, I was quoting from the commissioner's report, which was published last week. To date, having raised the matter with the Prime Minister last week and now with the Leader of the House, I have received responses which have partially and selectively quoted phrases in the report, without giving the true intent of the full sentence contained in the report.
I am concerned that the Government are clearly trying to avoid a difficult issue. I understand why it is a difficult issue--
Madam Speaker:
Order. That is not a matter for me. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but he seems to wish to prolong business questions. I cannot allow such arguments across the Floor of the House now.
Mr. Secretary Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Mandelson and Janet Anderson presented a Bill to make provision about the disclosure of certain information for purposes connected with television licences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 3 April, and to be printed. Explanatory notes will be printed [Bill 102].
[Relevant documents: The Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, on Access for All? A Survey of Post-16 Participation, HC 57-I, and the Government's response thereto, Session 1999-2000, HC213.]
Order for Second Reading read.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I wish to thank the staff in my Department for the enormous work that has already taken place in preparation for the conclusion of the debate and the urgent work that will need to be done in putting in train substantial structural changes, including funding, recruitment and the delivery of services. I wish also to put on record my thanks to the Further Education Funding Council for the work that it has done over many years and the co-operation that it is showing with the proposed changes.
I put on record also my considerable thanks to the 72 remaining training and enterprise councils, to the volunteers who have manned those councils--the chairs, board members and staff--who have done sterling work in many parts of the country. I thank Nick Reilly and the small group that he is leading for promoting the new skills agenda with employers throughout the country. We are grateful to them all for the work that they have done.
One of the greatest challenges facing the country is whether we can modernise and reform the learning and skills that we offer to young and old alike, and whether we can match the challenge of the new knowledge economy with a learning and skills market world wide while coping with the legacy of neglect, which we are dealing with in the Bill.
In a rapidly changing world, our people need the skills to be able to adapt and to cope with changes, as well as to take on board the flexibility and adaptability in the new labour market. To do that, we need to ensure that the majority, not the minority, have higher level skills, access to continuing updating of training, and the most modern and effective support for their training needs. We must make sure that that takes place in co-operation with employers, trade unions and individual learners.
In the past, a minority of people obtained the learning and skills that they required. For the majority of people, getting a job at 16 was the order of the day. It was argued that only a few--an elite--needed higher level skills to succeed, and that their talent would eventually allow wealth to trickle down to the rest.
1.25 pm
1.27 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |