| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: Defence Ministers come regularly to the House, both to debate and to make statements. They endeavour to keep the House as fully informed as possible. It is, of course, not always possible to anticipate every issue or air every question that may come up on defence. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence endeavours to keep the House informed and will, I know, continue to do so through our regular debates and statements.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Will the Leader of the House, in the forthcoming European debate or in an early statement, ensure that, for the first time, we get an accurate and straightforward account of the Government's European policy? In particular, will she ensure that Ministers answer the question about when they wish to abolish the pound, because they will be speaking against the background of a very successful "Save the Pound" weekend, led by the Conservative party?
Will Ministers also tell us for how much longer they wish the House to have the main power to tax people in this country, given the strong pressures in the draft treaty of Nice to give away huge chunks of our right to independent taxation? Is the right hon. Lady aware, for example, that it is no good defending ourselves in relation to the withholding tax in current negotiations and saying no, because if we sign the draft treaty of Nice in its current form, it could be pushed on us even if we objected to it?
Mrs. Beckett: The House is under no illusions--it knows exactly what the Government's European policy is. It has been repeated ad nauseam in the House, and was repeated again at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. Either Conservative Members are wilfully refusing to pay attention or they have difficulty in grasping a simple, straightforward statement of policy. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have clearly indicated that only when the economic tests are met would the question of belonging to a single currency even arise.
As for the power to tax and the withholding tax, the withholding tax famously remained in play, despite claims from the Conservative party that it vetoed it when plainly it did not. The Government have continually made it clear that we will resist attempts to erode our freedom to run our own tax affairs as we choose, and we are doing so very successfully.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): May I thank my right hon. Friend for her response to my advances over recent months? [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I do not want to be greedy, but she has now given us the 1999 annual debate on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, whereas this is the year 2000. When does my right hon. Friend plan to hold the debate after next?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sort of grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks. I recognise that he has been asking for this debate for some time--but to ask for another one is pushing his luck a bit.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): May I remind the Leader of the House of the question that I asked her on 27 January, which appears in column 586 of Hansard, in which I asked her to initiate an annual debate on road safety? She will be only too aware of the appalling accidents that have happened in Derbyshire. In the year to May 1999, some 17 people lost their lives on roads in Derbyshire; up to the May bank holiday this year, the figure is 35. That is an appalling rise, and I believe that it is also reflected in other counties. It is time that we had an opportunity to discuss this matter in the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concern. The whole House is conscious of the devastation that such a level of accidents causes to the lives of individuals and to the community. The Government have, as the hon. Gentleman will know, made available substantial increased investment for transport, but it takes time for that investment to bear fruit. However, where road safety is concerned, such statistics cause alarm and require careful investigation and thought.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): There has been increasing concern about some of the criticisms in Ofsted
reports on individual schools and local authorities, and there is continuing concern about some statements by the chief inspector of schools. Given that the responsibilities of Ofsted are due to be extended into the post-16 sector--the new Connexions service--and have been extended into the inspection of pre-school provision, and in view of Ofsted's unique nature as a Government agency beyond ministerial accountability, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea not just to have a debate on Ofsted in the near future, but to establish an annual debate in the House on its role and performance?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand that that issue is of considerable importance, and is one in which hon. Members--not least my hon. Friend--take a great interest. However, I fear that his request for a debate in the Chamber is yet another on the list of all those that we simply cannot satisfy. Of course there is the additional facility of debating time in Westminster Hall, to which my hon. Friend might care to direct his attention.
As for annual debates, we once added up the many issues on which Members on both sides of the House had requested such a debate, and came to the conclusion that if we were to grant all those requests, we should never do anything else.
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle): The Leader of the House told us earlier of the Prime Minister's enthusiasm to debate the voluntary sector. She may have noted that on Thursday 15 June there will be an opportunity for him to do so; a debate will be held in Westminster Hall on the role of the voluntary sector in national life--recognising and promoting volunteering.
Will the right hon. Lady advise us how many Ministers will be absent next week addressing the Women's Institute? If the number is significant, will that have as devastating an impact on the business of the House as it did on the Prime Minister?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is business questions, and it is not usual to ask for a debate while pointing out that such a debate will, in fact, take place. His question is thus rendered rather superfluous.
It would be a mistake on anybody's part to assume that the Prime Minister was distressed--[Laughter.] Like all of us, he is slightly regretful when people do not appear always wholeheartedly to agree with him. However, he is a man who has encountered disagreement in his time, and expects to do so again.
As I have already said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), what the Prime Minister said in his speech was unexceptionable; I should have thought that 99.9 per cent. of the British people would agree with it. Probably, only someone who actively did not want to agree with it would find something to disagree with.
The most disturbing aspect of the comments made after the Prime Minister's speech went completely unnoticed by the media; it is a constant theme, which I have long believed is a besetting sin in British public life--the notion that politics is something that has nothing to do with everyday life. Everybody in this House either does know or should know that it is through the political structure that many of the decisions that most affect
people's lives are taken. If people are concerned about the health service, about post offices and a whole range of other issues, that is what politics is about.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): May I ask my right hon. Friend to use her considerable influence to persuade, coerce or cajole a Health Minister to come to the House to give an explanation about a private cosmetic surgeon, David Charles Herbert, whom I have named several times in the House? He is probably operating today, has actually been accused of mutilating at least 80 women, who have sent their complaints to the General Medical Council and to the Secretary of State for Health, yet the GMC says that it cannot, under current legislation, suspend that cosmetic surgeon. We deserve an explanation.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in such matters and has long raised concerns about them--not only with this Government but with the previous Government--on behalf of those who have suffered and been affected by people carrying out plastic surgery. I am aware of her concerns about the role of the GMC. However, I fear that I cannot offer her either time for another debate on the matter or an immediate statement. As she knows, Health questions will take place in the near future, when I am sure that she will continue her many efforts to raise and to press that matter.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The right hon. Lady will be aware that her Government have made dramatic changes to the constitution and to the way in which the House of Commons operates. The one thing that the Government have not done--but which, I believe, they promised to do--is to restore status and authority to the House of Commons and to Back Benchers. Proposals to achieve that have been outlined in a report by the Liaison Committee entitled "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive". May I make a plea on behalf of all Back Benchers that the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that important report, so that the House and Back Benchers can have meaningful authority and status and the power of the Executive can be properly held to account? Will she find time for such a debate?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |