| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): Have Ministers given my right hon. Friend any indication of when they will introduce proposals to reform leasehold regulations, particularly those for the purchase of freeholds? They are of particular importance to thousands of home owners in Grimsby and Cleethorpes who have purchased leasehold houses and whose leases are about to expire. Certain freeholders charge more than the market value of a property for the purchase the freehold and many residents have lost homes for which they have paid mortgages. That
is a scandal and I hope that Ministers will introduce proposals as soon as possible so that no more of my constituents lose their homes.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point and, like all hon. Members, I am sorry to learn of the problems that have affected some of her constituents. The Government wish and intend to publish a draft Bill in the not-too-distant future, which would give the House an opportunity to debate those issues and whether their handling can be improved. As she will know, it would then be a matter of trying to find time for legislation. As she is a regular attender of this event, she will also have noted the many occasions on which Opposition Members have seemed to wish for the Government not to introduce any legislation. She has powerfully made the point that people wish many things in this country to change. That requires the Government to act.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): It is some three months since the Commissioner for Public Appointments published her report, which found that the Government had engaged in a systematic politicisation of health service appointments, but we have still had no statement or debate in the House on a damning document which criticised them in trenchant terms. As primary care trusts are being set up and appointments to them are being made, is not it particularly important that we should have a statement or a debate? It is essential that the abuses of the process of making public appointments should be stopped and cleared up before those appointments are completed.
Mrs. Beckett: It was made clear at the time that the appointments were made through the proper Nolan process and that no one was appointed who had not come through it. The appointments were not simply made by Ministers. However, when the report was published, the Secretary of State made it plain that he nevertheless felt that there was room for further improvement--the appointments process was, of course, put in place by the previous Government--and he has made those changes.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I thank the Leader of the House for her gracious hospitality in giving Lady Members the welcome opportunity to see Admiralty house this week. [Hon. Members: "Oh!] May I raise a matter with which she is familiar from her days at the Department of Trade and Industry and that is of great interest to the Women's Institute: pylons and the overhead transmission of electricity through the Vale of York and neighbouring constituencies? The Vale of York and particular parts of it such as Tockwith regularly lose their electricity supply and the fact that it is to be further jeopardised by pylons is a source of great concern. Will she make time for an early debate on the Floor of the House so that we can consider the merits of underground transmission?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for her kind remarks, although I fear that she has stirred up a demand from those around her. I have taken that on board.
I am aware of the anxiety about electricity supply in the hon. Lady's part of the world. She knows that the issues are technically difficult and have been the subject of much discussion and careful consideration. I fear that
I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future. However, its complexity and relevance to constituencies such as that of the hon. Lady makes it an issue that might well be aired in Westminster Hall. I also point out that Trade and Industry questions will take place on 15 June.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Business questions are an important part of the parliamentary week. Is not it therefore a shame that, of the Government's army of 400 Back Benchers, only six manage to stay for the duration? At its peak, only 15 or 20 attended. That may show that the Government are running out of steam. If they are not, will the Leader of the House dismiss press rumours that the state opening of Parliament will be delayed until January or may not occur, and confirm that it will take place, as usual, in November?
Mrs. Beckett: We do not tend to discuss the date of the state opening of Parliament on the Floor of the House at this stage. As ever, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the papers.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I share the incredulity of the Leader of the House about the Women's Institute's lack of gratitude and failure to recognise how lucky, privileged and honoured its members are to be living under this Government. In the light of that astonishing lack of gratitude, do the Government intend to publish their annual report, as they have done in the past two years? If so, when will it be published and how much will it cost the taxpayer? Perhaps they have rightly decided to kybosh the entire project and spend the money on essential services for the people of this country.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman offhand about the status and timing of the next report. However, as the hon. Gentleman will recall from previous exchanges on the matter, some 20,000 British citizens bought the report and paid their own money for it at W. H. Smith. Clearly, not everyone shares the hon. Gentleman's view of it.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): When are we to have the much delayed debate on small businesses? Given that 99.6 per cent. of Britain's firms employ fewer than 100 people, and that they account for 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, produce two fifths of our national output and now face a sea of regulation, which is deeper and more hazardous than at any time in our history, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is important to hold a debate without delay to tackle the anxieties of those enterprises?
Mrs. Beckett: As I have already said, I have found time in the current programme not only for an Opposition day, but for four days of debate on general issues. Although there is an undertaking to consider small businesses on a fairly regular basis, there is no commitment to an annual debate on the subject, for the reason that I identified earlier.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that The Economist intelligence unit and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which considered separate matters--financial matters, such as taxation and product regulation--pointed out that our light regulation is one factor that makes the United Kingdom one of the best places in which to do businesses.
Points of Order
1.23 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Hughes of Llanon, wrote to the Prime Minister in October 1999 about means testing disabled people in employment for the independent living fund, with special reference to their son, Colin Hughes, who is a producer for the BBC. The Prime Minister's office acknowledged the letter on 10 November 1999 and said that a reply would shortly be forthcoming from the Department of Health. In the intervening months, my constituents have written to the Department of Health several times and have copied the letters to the Department of Social Security. In the past fortnight, I have written again to the two relevant Ministers. To date, no reply has been received to the initial letter, which was sent in October 1999. Eight and a half months have passed without a reply to a letter on a matter of concern to my constituents. Will you deprecate that lack of activity, Madam Speaker, and urge Ministers to be timely in their replies?
Madam Speaker: I most certainly deprecate the lack of positive response to the hon. Gentleman. I can give no ruling on the matter; it is not a matter for me. I simply say to the Ministers on the Front Bench that I hope they will have noted the hon. Gentleman's words and will follow them up.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In her reply to my request for a debate on the European paper on environmental liability, the Leader of the House gave her reason for overruling the majority of the Committee yesterday. The reason was that there was a majority of Conservative members on that day. Is it a constitutional precedent that Select Committee majorities will be--
Madam Speaker: Order. I know that some hon. Members are extremely concerned about the matter, and I see that another hon. Member is ready to raise another point of order on a similar matter. The hon. Members correctly put their questions to the Leader of the House and she responded. They know the Government's position on the matter; it is not a matter for me.
Opposition Day
[13th Allotted Day]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |