| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I strongly endorse the request of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement on the potential use of taxpayers' money for party political campaigning by Members of Parliament? There is a need for clarity. I draw her attention, as I did three weeks ago with her Government colleagues, to Fees Office operations directorate factsheet No. 1, which appears dramatically to extend the use of the office costs allowance for Members to the sending of
- newsletters, factsheets, annual reports to their constituents.
In addition, it is totally inappropriate, at the presumed end of a Parliament, to change the rules in such a way. It looks as though some Labour Back Benchers, who have limited responsibilities in the House and limited staff to undertake those responsibilities, will suddenly receive a taxpayers windfall just before the general election that they can use to campaign. Will the Leader of the House urgently investigate how that rule came to be made and why there was no proper consultation on it? In the meantime, will she have it withdrawn until we have a statement?
Mrs. Beckett: I hope that I can satisfactorily answer the hon. Gentleman's main questions. I am a little surprised that the information has not been conveyed to him. No one consulted Opposition parties, no announcement was made and the SSRB could not be aware of a change in the rules because, as far as I know, there has not been one. If I identify correctly the guidance to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it is issued by the Fees Office, and it is not for me or any Leader of the House to instruct the Fees Office about the administration of expenditure and what is considered proper expenditure of public money. That is the last thing that I could do, and it is for the Fees Office to supervise that matter. My understanding is that it issued guidance to clarify the issue.
It has always been the case that Members have the right, should they wish, to provide information and to circulate newsletters that are paid for by the office costs allowance. I have always understood that some Members do that. Many others do not simply because there is not enough room in their allowance for that. As for the notion either that my hon. Friends are in some way seeking party political advantage or that there is a windfall, I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the Labour party--I do not know what the position is in his party--many people find themselves subsidising the office costs allowance out of their salaries.
Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion No. 1103 on the future of community health councils?
[That this House notes that the National Health Service Plan proposes the abolition of the community health councils and the redistribution of their functions between the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service, patients' forums, advisory citizens' panels, local council all-party scrutiny committees and the Commission for Health Improvement; and calls for the Government to engage in a robust national debate and consultation on how to deliver effective patient empowerment by adding to the best of community health councils and particularly by addressing the need for independence, integration locally and nationally, appropriate statutory powers and access to information and support mechanisms to identify and promote best practice.]
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is considerable interest in these matters both within and outside the House, particularly with regard to independence, local co-ordination and integration? Will she seek to make time for a debate on these matters as soon as possible?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are strong views on the matter on both sides of the House--there is some concern and some support. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, especially as, if I recall correctly, the paper is still out for consultation. My hon. Friend can, of course, seek the extra opportunities that will be provided should the House agree on Monday to the report on Westminster Hall for Back Benchers as well as for Select Committees.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Will the right hon. Lady consider reorganising the business next week so that on Monday we can discuss the EU proposal that 48 countries under the EBA--everything but arms--initiative should be able to import into the EU sugar on a tariff-free, quota-free basis? Does she understand that that poses a grave threat to the UK sugar industry? Does she also understand that many feel that it would be entirely destructive? British agriculture is not in a position to withstand any further economic knocks.
I know that there is to be a debate on these matters in Westminster Hall--it is listed for Tuesday. However, there is a real risk that they will considered by the General Affairs Council on Monday or early on Tuesday. That being so, the House should debate the issue urgently.
Mrs. Beckett: If the GAC is discussing the matter on Monday, a debate in the House on Monday could have little influence on the GAC debate. A debate on European affairs is scheduled for Thursday, and I do not feel able to bring it forward.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the excellent GCSE results that were announced today? They are a great tribute to teachers throughout the country, including those in my constituency in Nottingham. Such a debate would enable us to highlight the achievements of pupils gaining five A to C higher grades, and to highlight the real achievements of many schools that are working in exceptionally difficult circumstances with pupils of
low ability. They have been able to move such pupils from a G to an F grade, and have ensured that pupils take one or more GCSEs.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am only too happy to welcome the excellent results in his constituency, where I know he takes a great interest in education matters.
I entirely take my hon. Friend's point. I remember many years ago hearing William van Straubenzee, a Conservative Member, trying to educate some of his colleagues in the understanding that sometimes to raise the achievements of those whose abilities are somewhat limited is even more demanding, but equally worth while, than to raise the achievements of those who are of higher ability. I am conscious that a range of achievement is needed. My hon. Friend is right to identify that at least in part as a result of the Government putting money into education, and also as a result of our encouragement and desire to raise standards, achievements are higher across the board.
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): I know that the right hon. Lady takes seriously the historic responsibilities that she has as a defender of all Members, and particularly of the minority. Usually, a Minister who winds up a debate attempts to answer questions that have been raised in the debate. I ask her to refer to recent debates and, if I may be personal, speeches that I made in the defence debate and the procedure debate. By arrangement with the Front Benches, a Minister has only 15 minutes to answer questions, which means that he or she has an even greater excuse not to respond to them. Will the right hon. Lady use her influence--she has no control--through the usual channels to ensure that Ministers winding up a debate have long enough in which to answer the questions put during the debate?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important and interesting point, which illustrates the fact that we need to give more thorough and careful consideration to how we handle such issues. All too often, hon. Members make assertions--the press are sometimes even worse--that people should do this or they should do that. However, as I know the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates, Front Benchers respond to requests that they curtail the time they take to allow more Back Benchers to contribute in the debate. None the less, I take the point that the greater the degree to which that is done, the greater the difficulty in responding to issues raised in the debate. The point is an important one; I cannot undertake to find an answer to it now, but it is a matter to which the House should give careful consideration.
Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the health consequences for pensioners of scrapping the £200 winter fuel allowance, as advocated by the Tories, which would have a devastating effect on 18,000 pensioners in my constituency and on pensioners throughout the country?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will recall that the policy to which he refers is not unprecedented: when they were last in government, the Conservatives scrapped the heating allowance that then existed, so we have seen it all before. I share my
hon. Friend's view that, in the light of long understanding of the incidence of hyperthermia and excess winter deaths in this country, one of the most important steps taken for many years was the introduction of the heating allowance. I am astonished that the Conservatives appear not to have realised in time that when pensioners, understandably, talked about wanting an increase as of right, they did not mean people taking away what had already been given by the Labour Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |