| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House is aware of the difficult situation in Kosovo; no one nurtures any illusions as to the fact that it will continue to be difficult for a considerable period. There are great tensions in the region. However, there will be Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, when, no doubt, such matters can be aired.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a debate on the need to standardise Government language, so that, for example, the word "inflation" means the same for pensioners, whose pensions go up by 1.1 per cent. this month, for taxpayers, who find that their tax allowances are going up by 1.2 per cent., and for motorists, who find that the inflation increase on the cost of fuel is 3.4 per cent? Could we couple with that a debate about the use of the word "next", particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In March, he described next April as April 2000 and, today in answer to questions, he described next April as April 2001. He cannot have been correct both times.
Mrs. Beckett: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that there is some difference in the way that the indices are measured and that the change has been brought about by this Government. It has not; we have not changed the measures that we inherited from the previous Government. If he does not like the way the pensioners index is measured, where has he been for the past 18 years?
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): My right hon. Friend will recall that, in the 1980s, a Greater London councillor, Mr. David Wetzel, was responsible for introducing a "fares fair" policy in London whereby all pensioners travelled free on local transport. Other people have tried to claim the credit, but the policy was introduced by Mr. David Wetzel. Can my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on such matters, because we should extend that system nationally? People all over the country look very enviously on what has happened in London.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. However, I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the Government have just introduced a national scheme that means that pensioners will be entitled to half fares across the country. That is something that the Conservative party conspicuously failed to do.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Does the Leader of the House not accept that the position with regard to the other place is becoming intolerable? Time and time again, Parliament is demeaned by the appointments that are being made to the House of Lords. Surely it is time the Government introduced proper proposals that could be properly and urgently debated, so that, at the very least, we would know where everyone stands before the next election. The electorate would then
be able to make their judgment about what is going to happen to their Parliament and how far the upper House, in particular, can be accountable to them as the electorate. The matter is urgent; it cannot be put off. Will the right hon. Lady give us a proper answer?
Mrs. Beckett: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman feeling that it is intolerable that, in the House of Lords, the Conservative party, which was so overwhelmingly rejected at the last election, still has a majority of 34 peers over the Labour party. I share his view that that is intolerable. The Government are seeking to address the issue, but obviously everything cannot be done in one fell swoop.
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central): May I return my right hon. Friend to the topic of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which I raised with her last week? She then gave us an indication that the debate on setting the Committee up would be held on Monday in what is normally considered prime time. She has just announced that the matter will not be debated until after the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill and after likely votes at 10.30 on Tuesday evening. Will she assure me that that change did not come about because of pressure from the official Opposition, who have so little regard for the concerns of people in the English regions? Will she also assure me that the change in timing does not in any way reflect a lack of priority that the Government attach to the issue?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I shall not reveal too much about the discussions that go on through the usual channels, but he will have heard the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) thank me for taking off some of the business that was scheduled for Monday, and my hon. Friend is right to say that this issue was part of that business. In that sense, there clearly was a wish not to take on Monday all the business that had been scheduled for that day. I understand, and I regret, that it has not been possible to put the debate on earlier than its new scheduled time, but I hope that the proposal will find as great a welcome across the House as it does with my hon. Friend--otherwise those who call for a voice specifically for Members representing English seats could be accused of gross hypocrisy.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): In his role as chairman of the Government's better regulation taskforce, Lord Haskins has made it clear that schools throughout the country are wallowing in a sea of red tape and that the bureaucracy that is being piled on them by the Government is standing in the way of improving standards. Can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about what the Government intend to do to stop the endless piling on of red tape and allow schools to manage themselves with proper freedom as to how they get on with their job?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course everyone is very conscious of the importance of giving schools freedom to do their job in the right context. The notion that what the Government
have done bears no relationship to standards is not borne out by the facts, because standards have improved sharply, particularly in maths and, as a result of the literacy hour, in English. My recollection of Lord Haskins' remarks is perhaps a little fuller than the hon. Gentleman's. I recollect Lord Haskins saying that under the previous Government schools were smothered in red tape; he is not happy that this Government have reduced it enough. We shall continue to work at that.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham): Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable confusion and a little anger among some of my constituents about the winter fuel payments for males aged 60 to 65? They have been told that they will get the payment, but nothing else. To make matters worse, when one person phoned the Department of Social Security office to ask when he would get the payment, the reply was, "You tell us." People need to be reassured that the payment will be made and backdated, and they need to know when they will get it. I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend could arrange for a statement to be made to the House as soon as possible to answer those questions and reassure people.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the information that he seeks at the moment, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I hope that the information can speedily be provided to him and his constituents. I fear that the person whom his constituent contacted has something to learn about taking a customer-friendly approach.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): Since the responses of the Leader of the House on the House of Lords are either that it is all very difficult, or that the Government are busy with their reforming Bills, does she agree that it would have been much better for us all if the Government had decided, before they embarked on this venture, what they were eventually going to do, even if they could not have provided the whole of the legislation in a single tranche?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we had that debate in spades in discussions on the House of Lords Bill. As for the notion that we should have made all the decisions before we even embarked on the debate, I know that he is aware, and I am certainly conscious of the fact, that trying to do it that way led to the House of Lords remaining in existence for a further 100 years.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is the Leader of the House aware that there is still the old-fashioned view that if we cannot have a House of Lords based totally on patronage, and if we cannot have one based on an election because that would reflect on the standing of the House of Commons, we should go back to the original Labour party proposal to get rid of the House of Lords, which has now been brought into total disrepute by the actions of the Tory leader in nominating Lord Belize of Sleaze? I have a suggestion: 60,000 miners are queuing up to get their chests X-rayed so as to get their payments, so we should use the House of Lords to settle the dispute for those miners with lung problems.
Mrs. Beckett: I was slightly surprised that it was a Conservative Member today who raised appointments to
the Lords. I understand and respect the case that my hon. Friend puts for a unicameral system. If we decide not to accept that case, there is then a wholly different discussion about what the nature of the second Chamber should be. Much as I share, and I hope the whole House does--I know that all Labour Members do--the concern that my hon. Friend expressed about people in the mining community, and particularly about the suffering that many have endured for many years, I fear that I cannot find time to debate whether they should instead constitute a second Chamber.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |