| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: A number of people are concerned about the reports that appeared yesterday. My hon. Friend said that the situation in Montenegro is dangerous and deteriorating, but I understand--I know that my hon. Friend will welcome this--that that is not the case. The airport has reopened to normal civilian traffic, and it appears that there was more of a misunderstanding than a deliberately engineered difficulty, and that that misunderstanding has been resolved. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to keep the situation under review because we are anxious that Montenegro should continue to prosper.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Will the Leader of the House look more carefully at the opportunities that the House may have to follow up the issues raised at the Helsinki summit? She was present for much ofthe discussion just now when her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement and she will be well aware that the issues raised by the continued French ban on British beef go much wider even than agriculture; they raise questions about the whole decision-making process in the European Union and the integrity that member states believe it to have.
The right hon. Lady will recognise that the French Government are attempting to emulate the pick-and-mix attitude to EU agreements shown by some elements of the Conservative party. Such an approach could spread to other countries. Does she accept that the issues relate to qualified majority voting and the veto? Indeed, had the latter been applicable in the summer, the French could have vetoed the lifting of the ban on our beef exports.
Will the right hon. Lady take account of the extremely important issue of reform of European institutions and the way in which the European Court operates--important implications of which Members on both sides of the House have just recognised? A mere statement by the Prime Minister on Monday, and then a very short discussion, is not sufficient to deal with such extremely important structural issues.
The debate allocated for the Tuesday before we rise for the Christmas recess is not time-sensitive. May I suggest that that would be an appropriate day on which to discuss the extensive implications of the French decision for agriculture, our exports and the decision-making processes of the EU?
Mrs. Beckett:
I do not dismiss the importance of the hon. Gentleman's points, but, unfortunately, it is by no
Although these are of course grave and serious matters, and the Government will so deal with them, I am afraid that they are not unprecedented. I certainly do not see a case for sweeping away all other items that the House may wish to discuss in order to concentrate on that item at this particular time. Obviously, the matter will come up--perhaps in the aftermath of the statement on the Helsinki Council and, no doubt, on other occasions. However, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that the issue does not require our urgent consideration in quite the way that he suggests.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield):
Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to early-day motion 100, which has been signed by me and 115 other Members?
[That this House wishes to register its deep appreciation and gratitude to the doorkeepers and police who serve in the House of Commons and whose help and guidance have been of incalculable assistance to generations of members of the public; welcomes the introduction of modern communications technology, including telephones, computers, pagers and faxes which now make it possible for information to pass more quickly and efficiently but does not share the view that these techniques have, in any way, diminished the need for those staff who have always had responsibilities that go much wider; regrets the recent decisions that have been taken to reduce the staffing of doorkeepers and police in the Palace, thus preventing them from providing the best possible service, for which they have been recently, and expensively, trained; and invites the Serjeant at Arms to reconsider his decision, so as to take account of the importance these members of the staff play in the life and work of this place.]
It has given Members an opportunity to express their gratitude to the doorkeepers and police, who are essential to Members' work and to the public who come here. The motion expresses anxiety that the use of pagers and modern communications may render many of those doorkeepers and police unnecessary. Will my right hon. Friend discuss that with the Serjeant at Arms to see whether some arrangement can be reached that will safeguard the jobs of those people, who really make this place work?
Mrs. Beckett:
I do not think that there is an hon. Member who does not share my right hon. Friend's appreciation of and gratitude to the doorkeepers, police and related staff who provide the services on which we all depend and who do so much to smooth the path of Members, particularly when they are new and relatively inexperienced. I am sure that everyone shares my right hon. Friend's concern, too.
It is a matter of continued agreement between the Serjeant at Arms, the Speaker and all who are engaged in the management of the House that we truly value, and show that we value, our staff. In that sense, my right hon. Friend is seeking a continuation of our normal concerns. Without recalling precisely the rest of the text of the
motion, I think that he would be the first to say that the House must use modern and efficient methods, as well as recognise the value and service of individuals.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch):
The right hon. Lady's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) shows that the Government have betrayed the interests of small business. In the run-up to the election, the Labour party made a specific manifesto commitment to hold an annual debate on small business. So far, in two and a half years, there has been one such debate, and that was in 1998. The Government have obviously broken their promise for 1999. Is not it about time that they admitted just that?
May we have a debate on early-day motion 141?
[That this House notes that no representatives of the Liberal Democrat Party have played any role in the proceedings on the Financial Services and Markets Bill since 26th October and that their attendance before then had been at best 'patchy'; further notes that the role of the honourable Member for Twickenham as the representative of the Liberal Democrat Party from this House on the Pre-Scrutiny Burns Committee on the Bill was virtually non-existent; and is concerned that the Liberal Democrat Party is not taking seriously, or contributing to, the scrutiny of this important and complex piece of legislation which will have an enormous influence on the whole financial services industry in the United Kingdom.]
It reveals the pressure on the Liberal Democrats as a result of their involvement in government, which leaves them unable to attend Standing Committees that are considering important legislation.
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is utterly ridiculous. We made a commitment to small businesses. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green(Mrs. Roche), who first became the small business Minister, was gratified to hear people in the small business associations saying that she was the most successful and helpful small business Minister whom they could recall.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Is that why she was sacked?
Mrs. Beckett:
She has now been replaced by someone who is equally assiduous in her interest.
Mr. Bercow:
So she was sacked.
Mrs. Beckett:
She was promoted, not sacked. The notion that we have in some way betrayed the interests of small business--on account of a commitment that the Conservative party never even thought of giving--is ludicrous.
As for the role played by the Liberal Democrats, may I remind the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that it was his party that first sought to debate their role in the House, then changed its mind in the hope of scoring a triumph in the transport debate, which expectation was singularly disappointed? Secondly, may I say--without, I hope, causing too much disarray on the Liberal Democrat Benches--that for many years it has been my
experience that they are not always the most assiduous attenders at Committee, irrespective of what else is happening?
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington):
My right hon. Friend may be aware that I asked the Prime Minister yesterday for an inquiry into the insertion of a listening device in the car of the president of Sinn Fein during the peace process. Will she prevail upon her colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to make a statement about whether an inquiry will be pursued, in the light of the call for that inquiry by both the Irish Taoiseach and the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly? That statement should contain a response to questions about which Minister authorised the bugging device to be inserted; if a Minister did not authorise a device, who did; and what factors were taken into account in the decision, either by a Minister or by an official, particularly in view of the danger to the peace process at that delicate stage.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |