| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in this subject and has done a great deal of work on it. Although I am aware of the existence of the working group, which does extremely important work, I was not aware that the report was likely to emerge on that timetable and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter on the
Floor of the House, but it is exactly the kind of issue that she might seek an opportunity to raise in Westminster Hall.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Will the right hon. Lady agree to a early debate in Government time on the excessively high fuel duties and their adverse impact on road hauliers, other industries, not least the farming community, and those of us who live in rural villages and communities? It would also enable the Government to explain to the wider British public why two separate formulae were used to calculate the inflation rate for pensions and for fuel duties.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady raises the issue of the impact of high fuel duty, which has been much discussed in the House. She will know that an escalator was introduced on fuel duties for environmental reasons and that the precedent was set by the Conservative Government. This Government continued to follow that precedent for some time, although we have now ceased to do so. The hon. Lady will also know that the index on which the level of inflation for the pension increase was judged was set many years ago by the Conservative Government and this Government have not changed it, although these matters are reviewed from time to time. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a further debate in Government time, although I have no doubt that in various ways they will continue to be raised.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): At a meeting of the all-party group on leasehold reform the other evening, Ministers indicated that a draft Bill would appear in the next month or so. Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to take further with her ministerial colleagues the discussions that were mentioned at business questions earlier this year? I refer to whether a Scrutiny Committee could examine the proposed legislation, which will introduce for the first time in English law a new form of property tender.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend--who takes a close interest in the subject, which is of considerable importance in his constituency--makes the interesting suggestion that the draft Bill ought to be subject to some form of pre-legislative scrutiny. I undertake to raise that matter with the ministerial colleagues primarily concerned.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Notwithstanding this afternoon's debate on the intelligence agencies, may we have at least a statement on the activities of another intelligence agency operating in the House--given truly shocking reports that Labour party researchers have admitted to habitually eavesdropping on a right hon. Gentleman and passing that intelligence to 10 Downing street? Does the right hon. Lady recall the fate of a politician on the other side of the Atlantic who encouraged such practices?
Mrs. Beckett: I have heard of such reports but am not aware that anybody has admitted to habitual eavesdropping on the leader of the Liberal party. If anyone employed as a so-called political adviser has been doing so, they should be sacked for incompetence.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great dismay and
disappointment among not scores but hundreds of hon. Members of all parties at the news that the House will not debate before the summer recess the urgent matter of modernisation? Many of us are getting fed up with a few Conservative Members jerking at the end of their chain to frustrate the clear will of the majority of right hon. and hon. Members. I ask my right hon. Friend not to say definitely today that we will be denied the opportunity to debate that matter before the summer.
Mrs. Beckett: I try never to say anything definitive during business questions. I do not definitively rule out such a debate, but at present one seems unlikely. I do not fully understand the concern as to whether or not the matter is debated before the summer recess. If such a report emerges and is debated, the important point is that a decision be made in time for it to become effective at the only point when it could be given effect to--perhaps in a new parliamentary Session. I assure my hon. Friend that I have in no way lost sight of the matter.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Given that time is drawing on, may I give the Leader of the House the opportunity to say yes to a request for a debate? The right hon. Lady has considered sympathetically in the past the fate of people living in Kingskerswell and the lack of a bypass there. Holcroft Fox has now reported that the people of Kingskerswell are entitled to relief and that only a bypass can provide it. Will the right hon. Lady urgently find time for a debate, so that the Government can clarify their position on the construction of bypasses? If they mean to go ahead with the building programmes they have suggested, there is one ready and waiting to start.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future but I will draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Transport the hon. Gentleman's strong view that there is an urgent need to implement that project. My noble Friend anticipates making some proposals about his transport plan in the not too distant future.
Helen Jones (Warrington, North): Has my right hon. Friend yet heard when the Government's response to the Stewart report might be available? When it is available, will she ensure that we have a debate in the House on the issues surrounding mobile phones and the erection of mobile phone masts? The latter is an issue of great concern to many of my constituents, not least in my own village of Culcheth. Will she draw those concerns to the attention of Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, so that the House has an opportunity to review the laws that were brought in by the previous Government, which give residents little or no chance to make their views known through the planning process before the masts are erected?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, not least because it enables me to say from the Dispatch Box that that concern is deeply felt in my constituency, where several residents are running a strong local campaign. I fully understand the concern that is being expressed. There has been an initial response to the Stewart report, and consideration is being given to the
planning implications, but of course I undertake to draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): The right hon. Lady will be aware of the rally and lobby of the House today by the British Weights and Measures Association, which is fighting a laudable, vigorous and patriotic campaign to prevent further metrication of our weights and measures. Will she confirm that Ministers will make time to meet the association today? Will she also confirm that we will have a statement responding to its legitimate requests to protect the interests of small traders especially, who have already buckled under the burden of £5 billion of extra red tape from this Government and who face further regulation through the programme to get rid of British imperial measurements?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not know what pressure ministerial diaries are under, but of course I recognise the strong concern that has been long expressed by the British Weights and Measures Association. All that I can do is ask the hon. Gentleman where he was when the previous Government made the changes. This Government have already once, if not twice, postponed the implementation of the measures because we are mindful of their impact on small traders. It is yet another example of Opposition Members deploring things that they themselves did.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): With her deep knowledge of social security, my right hon. Friend was, I am sure, burning the midnight oil last night reading the fascinating report by the Social Security Committee on the contributory principle, which was published yesterday. The report drew attention to the long-standing unfairness in the national insurance fund whereby contributions are increased annually by the higher rate of inflation, but benefits--including pensions--are paid out at the lower rate of inflation. As the report makes clear, the national insurance fund has an unneeded surplus, above the contingency funds, of £6 billion, which will grow considerably over the next 20 years, thus allowing the link between pensions and earnings--the higher rate of inflation--to be restored now and in the future.
Can we debate early-day motion 1?
[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to raise income support for pensioners annually in line with average earnings, but regrets the widening gap between the basic pension and income support; notes the Treasury's estimate that by April 2002 the National Insurance Fund's balance will be £8.43 billion above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary; and urges that part of that surplus should be used to restore the link between the basic pension and average earnings for the remaining years of this Parliament, thus ensuring that all pensioners share in the nation's increasing prosperity and preventing a further increase in the number receiving income support.]
By doing so, the Government could add to the magnificent and beneficial measures that they have taken for pensioners, including the restoration of the link, as the nation's pensioners want.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |