| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I did not hear Question 12 at Treasury questions, but I see not the smallest necessity for the Chancellor to come to the House in order to repeat what he and all of us have said on hundreds of occasions. The tendency of the press to try to reinterpret a policy that has not changed over the past two to two and a half years is deeply boring, and it is even more boring when that keeps happening in the House.
With regard to widows' SERPS entitlement, the hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers have the matter under consideration and are in the process of seeing what can be done to rectify what he rightly calls a serious case of pensions mis-selling. He might, of course, press the official Opposition to raise the matter during their time, as it is they who were responsible.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Ministers discuss
the health service next week, it would be helpful if they could make clear not only the short-term implications of a massive transfer of NHS funds into the private sector for the short-term care and treatment of NHS patients, but the long-term effects on the NHS? Ministers should also make clear the need for people being treated in the private sector to enjoy not only the same standards of care, but protection in terms of insurance and the ability to sue anyone who is not providing that high level of care, if they have been transferred without their consent into the private sector.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely well aware that it is important to the Government, as to individuals, that NHS patients be treated in the private sector only if the standards that we would all expect are preserved. I know that from time to time concerns have been expressed about those standards. Equally, my hon. Friend knows that it is the Government's intention to announce in the not too distant future proposals for a long-term plan for the health service, which should not only raise those standards, but make sure that people have access to NHS care. That is not the position that we inherited, as my hon. Friend knows, but I feel confident, Madam Speaker, that she will seek to catch your eye to make those points during the debate that has just been announced.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): During the debate on the Lords, the Leader of the House expressed a commitment to set up soon a Joint Committee of both Houses. If the Government take the view that
- Being democratic does not necessarily mean having elections--[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 124.]--
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman was in his place, so he will know that he did not repeat with absolute accuracy the words that I used. I am sure that that was an oversight on his part. It was my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who made the remark to which he has referred. I share the view that an extra group of people elected to the second Chamber would not necessarily be an addition to democracy. If we and the people of this country want a means of electing people who then form the Government, which gives them a direct input into the use of power, it seems to me that that is best expressed through one superior Chamber and another that may give advice. That superior Chamber is this body, and I am surprised to learn that some Members of it do not wish it to remain so.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the new targets for waste recycling recently proposed for local authorities. Is she also aware that a number of waste disposal authorities are having difficulty reaching those targets because of the financial regime and the amount of investment in waste management plant, and because the landfill tax operates against such investment? Will she make time in the House for a debate on the matter, given the importance of the new targets to this country's approach to recycling in the future?
Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware that there is great concern throughout the country that we should pursue the
right policy on waste management and that all the details and implications of its implementation should be covered. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time on the Floor of the House, which is under great pressure. However, I recommend the extra opportunities for debate and scrutiny of the Government that Westminster Hall provides.
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle): I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that anorexia is a serious illness. However, will she advise us whether it would be possible for the Minister for Women to come to the House and explain the apparently ludicrous policy of having weight-watching police to monitor the number of appearances on television by fat people as compared with those by thin people? Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether the policy is simply a plot to ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister gets more television time? If so, Conservative Members heartily approve of it.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I missed the hon. Gentleman's punch line. The relevant Minister will attend Question Time on Tuesday week. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an article in the Daily Mail. I agree that anorexia is a serious and difficult subject, and I believe that some serious discussion took place yesterday about the way in which it can be tackled, but for me the tone of the article was set by a photograph on the next page--of two women wearing lampshades.
Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): My right hon. Friend will have seen report this week about the attack on the house of Margaret Dongo, who is a Member of Parliament in Zimbabwe. Margaret Dongo is the only Member from the Movement for Democratic Change because she is a courageous woman who had the guts to challenge the electoral malpractices of the ruling party. When I spoke to her the night before last, she told of her house being attacked by rocks and stones. She cowered under a table in fear of her life. My right hon. Friend also knows that elections take place in Zimbabwe this weekend. Will she consider a debate next week on their outcome and the difficulties that will remain whatever the result?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the whole House deplores the violence to which my hon. Friend referred and the pressure that the opposition are under in Zimbabwe. My hon. Friend knows that the Government and, indeed, the whole House have repeatedly urged the right of the people of Zimbabwe to make their choice freely and fairly in the elections this weekend. The event that my hon. Friend described is a sharp reminder of how fortunate we are to have the political peace that we enjoy in this country.
I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wishes to keep the House informed. Perhaps a time scale will be set as the information comes in. I cannot give an undertaking for a debate at the moment, but I will bear my hon. Friend's observations in mind.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): In a week in which the flower of English cricket has been bundled out of a test match in three days, the flower of English football has been bundled out of Euro 2000, and the flower of English hooliganism has been bundled out of Belgium, the only people not able to move about much
were those who were trying to escape this country and who were paralysed by a computer failure at three of the main British airports and a broken rail on the London underground. Could we have a debate soon about when and whether life will improve under new Labour?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by referring to the unfortunate lack of success of some of our sportsmen and women. I attribute a lot of that to the sale of school playing fields under the Conservative Government.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): I know that the House of Lords is a problem for everybody and that we have had a big discussion of it, but I support the third way. The third option is to abolish the House of Lords. We could then have a revising Chamber of about 100 lawyers in this place; they could dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. We do not need a second Chamber. At least two countries do not have one. And now that we have got rid of the hereditary principle, why not abolish the monarchy as well?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure that that is what is conventionally regarded as the third way. I do know, however, that Lord Wakeham, for instance, believes that unless the second Chamber is a distinctly different Chamber bringing different experience to bear, there is no point in having it. In that sense Lord Wakeham is a unicameralist, as he has made plain, and--although it does not represent the policy that the Government are advocating--I understand the logic of that approach.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government agree that the second Chamber should be different and distinctive, and not a clone of, or competitor with, this Chamber. That is why we are minded to accept the broad proposals in the Wakeham report.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): The 8,500 multiple sclerosis sufferers who would benefit from beta interferon will be bitterly disappointed by the Prime Minister's airy dismissal of the question asked during yesterday's Question Time by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I rather suspect that, by now, the Prime Minister himself may regret having so cheaply dismissed the concerns of those who are worried about the leak from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Is it not time the Government found time for a debate on the way NICE works? Should we not debate not just the question of the drug's cost-effectiveness--which it may be reasonable for NICE to consider--but why civil servants, professors and doctors are considering the issue of affordability? Affordability is at the heart of the decision about beta interferon. Is it not time that the House engaged in a full debate to discuss the implications?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |