| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: I have not been thinking much about the annual report, but I expect there will be one, as it is supposed to be annual. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's proposal for one to the attention of those responsible. He and the House may find it slightly surprising that there were substantial sales to the public of that document last year. I am speaking purely from memory, but I think that about 20,000 copies were sold. That may say something about a lack of entertaining reading material, but I can only give the hon. Gentleman the facts.
The hon. Gentleman has given me a useful idea, which I shall certainly pass on to those responsible for the content of the document. It should have an annex, comparing the record of this Government on all the items that he cited with that of the previous Government.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East):
Hon. Members who have a particular interest in housing have waited patiently for three years for a major debate on the subject in the Chamber. This week, the first comprehensive review of housing policy for 23 years was published. I congratulate the Government on that excellent document. Can we please have a major debate in the Chamber before the Government introduce any housing Bills?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I share his welcome for the Green Paper. I take account of his observations about a debate in the Chamber, but I fear that such a debate is unlikely in the near future. I understand his anxiety for no legislative proposals of substance to be introduced before the matter has been more fully debated. I am confident that the Green Paper will allow a forum for such a debate throughout the country.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
The Modernisation Committee differs from other Select Committees in that it can call any number of hon. Members as expert witnesses. Can we inform its deliberations through a debate in the Chamber about our working hours before we reach any conclusions? Those
On programme motions, the right hon. Lady will recall that those agreed through the usual channels for the Scotland Bill ensured that many clauses and amendments that were important to Back Benchers were not scrutinised.
Mrs. Beckett:
Of course, the Modernisation Committee meets to discuss such matters. There is no question of the arrangements for this House being changed as a result of that Committee's deliberations without their being aired and given an opportunity for comment in the House. That is always the case. The arrangements are a House, not a party matter.
To go back as far as the Jopling report, those of us who discussed programming Bills and the scale of discussion agreed to such procedures because they are the best way of trying to ensure that Back-Bench Members scrutinise the provisions of most concern, rather than simply talking them out by accident or through guillotine motions.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
May we have an early debate on the applicability of the Register of Members' Interests? If my right hon. Friend reads column 116 of Hansard on 27 March, she will find the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) opining at great length on petrol prices. If she looks at page 116 of the Register of Members' Interests, she will read that the shadow Chancellor is on the payroll of Kerr McGee, the world's third biggest petrol exploration company. The right hon. Gentleman did not register that interest before the debate.
After last week's scandal of the appointment of Baron Belize of Sleaze to the House of Lords because of all the money that he gave the Tory party, is it not clear that sleaze is the soft underbelly of the shadow Cabinet, and at the heart of the Conservative party?
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend draws attention to the Register of Members' Interests and the information contained therein. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future.
I am conscious that it is important to keep the register as up to date as possible and that the point of the register is to ensure that information is not hidden. Hon. Members should make it clear in the House when they have interests that are relevant to the debate. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) did that.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
May we have a debate on the Government's shameful attitude to the future of grammar schools? Such a debate would give the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the chance to explain why he and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), have formally abandoned any pretence of neutrality on the subject and now publicly campaign for the destruction of some of our finest state schools in the borough of Trafford.
Mrs. Beckett:
I think that I know perhaps a little more about the fine schools in the borough of Trafford than
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton):
May I press my right hon. Friend for a debate on the housing Green Paper? My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that it represents the first comprehensive statement for 23 years, but I believe that it provides the first real opportunity for Parliament to put right 23 years of neglect and prejudice in housing policy. This is a matter of great concern to my constituents and to people across the Greater London region, and it is important that Parliament's views be taken into account during the consultation, which ends in July.
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He has a long track record of campaigning on and pursuing those issues, not only as a Member of Parliament. I can only say that I do not anticipate being able to find time for a debate in the near future. As he will know, at this time of year the emphasis is usually on the progress of Government legislation, but he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) have made an important point and I undertake to bear it in mind.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury):
According to independent and objective House of Commons Library information, typical working families are £13 a week worse off this week, despite the Chancellor's denials and obfuscation. Bearing in mind her responsibilities to the House rather than her membership of the Government, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on whether the Government dispute the independence and objectivity of the information that the Library provides?
Mrs. Beckett:
I have long experience of the impartiality of the information provided by the House of Commons Library and of the partiality with which Members read and present it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire):
Is that a confession?
Mrs. Beckett:
No, it is a statement of fact. Members on both sides of the House use information to suit their purposes, which is no doubt why people talk of lies, damned lies and statistics. Having announced the Second Reading of the Finance Bill for the week after next, I do not feel the need to provide a further opportunity for those issues to be aired.
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch):
My right hon. Friend will have seen early-day motion 595, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), on the United States plan to develop a national missile defence system:
[That this House notes that the United States plans to develop a National Missile Defence system and that President Clinton is due to make a decision about further developments this summer; is concerned that the United
States has asked Russia to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which is widely considered to be the cornerstone of international arms control; believes that the deployment of a NMD system could destabilise international relations and result in further vertical and horizontal proliferation; is worried that Britain will collaborate with the United States on NMD through Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire; and calls on the Government to initiate a debate on the advisability of Britain's involvement in these potential and destabilising developments.]
The plan could be globally destabilising and it has been made by an extremely aggressive world power that tends to bomb any enemy that it does not happen to like back into the stone age at every given opportunity. People inside and outside the House are also concerned because the Government may be going along with the system in some way, particularly as RAF Fylingdales and Menwith Hill in Yorkshire may be involved. Can we have a debate or at least a statement by a Defence Minister?
Mrs. Beckett:
The Government certainly share my hon. Friend's view that the anti-ballistic missile treaty and broader strategic stability should be preserved, and continue to work to that end. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the specific issue that he raises in the near future, especially as we are to have a defence debate in the next couple of weeks. However, I am sure that he has taken note of and comfort from the fact that his words have been heard by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |