| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman, along with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), has been pressing for a debate on long-term care, and he will have heard my response.
The hon. Gentleman's other point has two important implications: the handling of early-day motions and whether we can find a way of debating them again; and the means and forum for such debates and whether that is a matter for the Modernisation Committee. Obviously, the matter can be discussed in that Committee but, as he will know, following proposals already made by the Committee on sittings in Westminster Hall, there are substantial extra opportunities for debate. Regardless of whether the matter arises directly as part of the mechanism of early-day motions, when there is an issue of genuine interest and concern, there is nothing to stop hon. Members using other means of raising it in the House.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
Tonight's Adjournment debate is to be on objective 2 funding in Beverley and Holderness. In order to save Member after Member applying for Adjournment debates on objective 2 status for their areas, could not we have a general debate, so that all those who have concerns can question the Minister?
Mrs. Beckett:
That is an interesting remark. I remind my hon. Friend that there is a trade and industry debate on Friday. I cannot at the moment undertake to find time for a special debate on objective 2 funding, but I completely accept his basic point that there should be better ways of handling the matter than for every hon. Member to try to get a debate on his or her area. When I write to hon. Members, I shall draw attention to the variety of ways in which they have the opportunity to raise issues, and I hope that that will be of assistance.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
One of the notable omissions from the Queen's Speech was any mention of farming, with the single exception of fur farming. Is the Leader of the House aware that pigs today cost £7 more to produce than the price that they achieve at the abattoir and that the industry is losing about £2 million a week and facing total meltdown before Christmas? Will she find time for a full day's debate on the plight of the pig farming industry and, if not, does she accept that pig farming may disappear in this country before fur farming?
Mrs. Beckett:
Unless the Conservatives intend to subsume agriculture in today's debate on the countryside
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham):
That is today's debate.
Mrs. Beckett:
Yes, I realise that, but the right hon. Gentleman's party has not singled out agriculture and farming for debate. I was under the impression that the Conservative party's general approach was that there was too much legislation and regulation, but the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) seems to be calling for more. I merely note that degree of inconsistency. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have given substantial help and are concerned about the plight of pig farmers and farmers in general. We shall continue to keep matters under review.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North):
Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether time can be found for a debate on early-day motion 929 from the last Session, which attracted more signatures than any other? That motion showed the overwhelming support of Back Benchers from all parties for an appeal asking the United States Senate to reconsider the comprehensive test ban treaty. I have forwarded the early-day motion to President Clinton and to the leaders of the Senate in the hope that they may follow the example of the House of Commons in putting global security before partisan politics. I fear that if they do not do so, they may endanger non-proliferation.
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend makes a serious point about a matter that has raised concern on both sides of the House and across the world. Anxiety remains that the signal from the American Senate may hinder the cause of non-proliferation. The strong expression of views by Members of the House of Commons will not go unnoticed, but this is hardly the first time that partisan politics has gone against national and international interests.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
I understand that, in keeping with growing tradition, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may make a statement elsewhere today. Meanwhile, may I plead with the Leader of the House for a debate on the Patten report, a plea that I have made before? Before the consultation period is over, may the House have an opportunity to express its views on the report?
Mrs. Beckett:
Others may be making statements today. I am not clear of the time scale on these matters, and the hon. Gentleman may be more familiar than I am withthe detail of how matters are shifting. However, the Government have sought throughout the process to keep the House properly informed, and we shall continue to do so. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland feels that the time is right to make a statement to the House, he will certainly do so. Indeed, he is eager to do so, as we are all eager that the Good Friday Agreement should reach a successful conclusion.
The hon. Gentleman rightly reminds me that he has previously asked about a debate on the Patten report. I cannot undertake to schedule such a debate, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk):
I am sorry to have to tell the House that the Barclays bank branch in Heacham will close tomorrow. This is one of many bank closures in rural areas of England, and I am sure that it results from general market failure. None of the banks seems able to justify a presence in our larger villages. There are 5,000 people in Heacham, and Barclays is the last bank there. Will the Government recognise that when markets fail, we need new initiatives to help people in rural areas, particularly those who have neither cars nor easy access to neighbouring market towns? Can the House debate that issue at an early date?
Mrs. Beckett:
I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I note that Conservative Members seem amused by the prospect of his constituents losing their opportunity to access valuable services, an attitude in sharp contrast with their professed concern for people in rural areas. I should remind my hon. Friend that today's debate focuses on the countryside as well as the environment and transport. The Treasury team will attend Wednesday's debate. However, I accept that he is making an important point. I assure him that the Government give great attention to rural issues and expect to publish further proposals in due course.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
The Leader of the House will be aware that today's Order Paper shows two First Readings, one of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill and the other of the Freedom of Information Bill. Will she consider allowing us an urgent debate as a preliminary to the Second Reading debates on those Bills, so that we can attempt to influence them? It is becoming increasingly obvious that Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, are either genuinely ignorant of Government financial matters such as taxation and expenditure, or give the wrong impression of such matters from time to time both to the House and to the public. Would it not be helpful to have a proper framework of public information, perhaps based on those two Bills, so that we in the House and the public in general could be assured that no matter what the Prime Minister tells us, the truth will somehow come out?
Mrs. Beckett:
That was a rather elaborate attempt to make some general, although ill-founded, political points. I simply remind the right hon. Gentleman that he shows less than his usual skill in choosing those two examples, because both those Bills have had substantial pre-scrutiny.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
This afternoon Serplan, which represents 18 million people in the south-east, is likely to reject the proposals of the Crow report. It is vital that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions makes a speedy decision, and I believe that it would assist him if we debated the issue in the House. I realise that it will be possible to raise the matter in the debate this afternoon, but I believe that it is a vital issue that merits a full day's debate.
Mrs. Beckett:
I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that he can raise the issue today. No doubt he will also look
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
Can the Leader of the House assure us that when the defence White Paper finally arrives we will have a full two-day debate on it, as well as, at the end of the Session, another two-day debate on the defence estimates for next year? Will she assure us that we will not lose two days' defence debates because the Government have been late in producing this year's White Paper?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |