| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.40 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a great believer in convention in this House, but I am inclined on this occasion to break our conventions almost gratuitously. Today, the Minister and I agreed very readily that we would reduce the amount of time that we would require for summing up so as to allow more Members to make contributions. I am happy to say that that has worked, although Members have had to cut their contributions dramatically. The effect of this will be clear to all, however. We have heard more than 20 contributions in the debate, and by my reckoning they have covered well over 16 very different subjects. Frankly, for me to attempt to sum that up on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in any meaningful way in 10 minutes is faintly absurd. I am therefore not going to attempt to do so.
Part of the problem was touched on in a peevish comment by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who then beetled off and is sadly even now not in his place. I blame the modernisers for this problem, because it is those folk who insisted on leaving at 6 o'clock on a Thursday. In the good old days, we would have been here until 10 o'clock, and all the
Members who wanted to speak would have had all the time in the world. But this insistence by the modernisers that we must cut our hours and work so-called civilised hours has brought us to where we are now.Now we have to make a choice: either all Members get to say something, although some have had to cut their remarks to an almost ludicrous extent, or the summing up cannot be in any way meaningful. I extend my sympathy to the Minister in this regard; he will find himself in exactly the same position. He will do his best, of course, but Members want a meaningful Government response. I know that that is what they want; they do not particularly want one from me. Nevertheless, I am going to stay on my feet for a few minutes; that is all that I have left. Members want some response from the Minister and he simply will not be able to do justice to their contributions. We have a dilemma, and I hope that the powers that be on the Procedure Committee, the Modernisation Committee or whatever will turn their thoughts to it. Otherwise, this process will become less and less meaningful in parliamentary terms.
Having said that, the debate has ranged across subjects as varied as Cyprus, the United Nations, asylum, the elderly, antisocial behaviour, public service failure, Northern Ireland elections, cystic fibrosis, deep vein thrombosis, the Welsh Assembly, odours, parenting, the US judicial system, the closure of colleges, Stansted airport, the Olympics and DNA. That gives some idea of the breadth of the interests that Members have. It is interesting to note that, by my reckoning, the subjects were split roughly half and half between constituency concerns and more general issues. That is an interesting comment on the choice that Members make in using the time available to them in these Adjournment debates.
The contributions highlighted various difficulties. For example, there were several speeches about Cyprus. The hon. Members for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) both mentioned it, as did one or two others. They were saying, "Why can't these people get together, be sensible and put aside their differences in order that they may all prosper together?" That is not an unreasonable prospect.
I welcome back to the Chamber the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who is staying as late as 6 o'clock to hear the conclusion of the debate. He can read what I said earlier in Hansard, and he will not like a word of it.
Mr. Allen: The House is so modern that I had the great pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks on the television in my office. I have hurried down to the Chamber to tell him that the reason that we finish at 6 o'clock is because of the clowning around involved when he used to take the House through into the early hours of the night. I congratulate him on that.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing us the honour of returning. I am not sure whether I approve of him scuttling off to his office and watching the proceedings on television while pretending that he was here taking part in them. That is another development that I deplore and wish that we could get rid of. I would personally disconnect all the televisions in the offices and have Members here in the Chamber, but then, I am an old-fashioned sort of guy.
I was talking about Cyprus. I wanted to make a distinction between Cyprus and Northern Ireland, as some Members touched on the subject of Northern Ireland. This is the irony. Members plead, not unreasonably, for reconciliation in Cyprus and for people with different attitudes, cultures and traditions to come together and see things in a similar way. This afternoon, we heard about our own problem in Northern Ireland—a problem that we have not been able to solve after several hundred years of difficulty, and one that is very similar in essence to the Cyprus problem. In a single debate, in one afternoon, two very different subjects have overlapped, and illustrated the same problem in different ways.
Many Members illustrated the difficulties faced by any Government, not least this one. The hon. Member for Ilford, North, as a good, loyal Back Bencher, praised the Government. I hope that she gets a job in the reshuffle that may well take place tomorrow. She had better sit by her telephone. She then said, however, that there was not enough money for Crossrail or for other things in her constituency, thus neatly illustrating the difficulty that the Minister will experience in trying to placate colleagues who, having praised their Government for what they believe is good, nearly always add "but on the other hand"—and then proceed to make what is usually a not unreasonable demand. Such are the difficulties and dilemmas of government.
I have got all that off my chest, and I have not even attempted to reply to the debate for reasons that I have already given. I shall now sit down and leave the Minister a little extra time in which to please his colleagues and at least do some honour to the traditions of these debates.
5.46 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was courteous to give me a little more time than I expected. As a BBC radio journalist, I was disciplined to try and tell a story in 40 seconds, and I have never quite understood why the difference between 10 and eight minutes is so crucial to Members trying to get their points across in speeches. The fact that Members have made very good speeches today in six, seven or eight minutes shows that it is possible.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is difficult for me as the Minister to do justice to all the points raised in the time remaining. I hope that hon. Members will accept today, as they have in the past, that if I fail to deal with all their concerns here and now I will write to them, or encourage those in the Departments to which those concerns are really directed to do so.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have enjoyed references to the usual rich variety of topics in this traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate, from odours in Castle Point—about which the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) rightly kicked up a stink—to the situation in Cyprus, raised by a number of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) and for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). I will certainly draw their remarks to the Foreign Secretary's attention at this critical juncture for the future of
Cyprus. I hope that I can reassure them by saying that the Government believe that a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus on the basis of the United Nations plan is in Turkey's interests. We regularly make that clear to the Turkish Government.The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about our procedures and the accountability of Government in this place. I am ashamed to say that I have not yet had a chance to read the whole of the work produced by Parliament First, the group of which he is a member, although I have read press reports about it. I look forward to nothing more than spending part of the Whitsun recess back in Devon having a proper look at it.
I do not entirely agree with all the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He was an ardent supporter of the modernisation package for which the House voted in October, and which was opposed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that in many ways it has improved Government scrutiny. Questions have become much more topical, and we have introduced much more pre-legislative scrutiny. Bills are now published in draft. We have also introduced cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall: questions were asked this afternoon on drugs. In many ways, it was a little unfair of him to suggest that there was less scrutiny of Government.
The current Prime Minister has become the first to subject himself to questioning by the Liaison Committee, which consists of the male and female Chairmen of all the Select Committees.
In the run-up to the conflict with Iraq, this Government became the first to allow a full debate and vote on such an issue on a Government motion. Many commentators have not allowed the significance of that precedent to sink in—a precedent that will make it extremely difficult for future Governments to commit British forces to armed conflict abroad without seeking similar parliamentary support. I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall therefore accepts that there have been some improvements in terms of what he seeks.
I will have another look at the issue of the Speaker's list, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I understand that the Procedure Committee discussed it, but I shall re-examine it and consider whether there is a way forward.
Several Members concentrated on public services. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) discussed the delays, as he sees it, in the building of the new hospital in Bicester, and I will ask the Department of Health to get back to him on that. As usual, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) painted a picture of absolute disaster in Southend, be it schools, hospitals or law and order. I doubt whether that reflects the reality—I am sure that his constituency is a much nicer place than that.
The comments of the hon. Member for Southend, West were balanced by those of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North drew attention to a number of improvements in public services in her constituency. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), having raised the issue of his local hospital so many times before, seemed to suggest that he has
secured its future. I am extremely pleased that that is so, and I suspect that it is partly due to the extra money that the Government are putting into the health service.I have a difficulty with the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. He says that enormous challenges remain in the delivery of public services, but how could they be met if we were to adopt the Conservative policy of cutting spending on public services by 20 per cent.? The complaints of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the delivery of public services in their constituencies would become infinitely worse if we did so.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) raised a local issue that I am aware of: the future of Seal Hayne college. I know that he has campaigned hard on behalf of his constituents, and specifically those in Newton Abbot, on its future. If he will give me the detailed questions that he had no time to ask today, I will ensure that he gets answers to them.
Several Members talked about the problem of crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) discussed in detail the very good work that is being done to tackle crime in Northern Ireland. He said something very wise when he pointed out that the fear of crime, particularly among older people, is often a bigger problem than crime itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) welcomed a number of Government measures that have had a positive impact in his constituency. He expressed the view of those on both sides of the House when he hoped that the Fireworks Bill, which returns to the House on 13 June, has a successful passage and gets on the statute book. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not use the same wrecking tactics that destroyed a previous Bill on fireworks, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). Many people throughout the country will be extremely angry and disappointed if we do not get the Fireworks Bill on the statute book.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) suggested that we introduce a mandatory DNA register. That is an interesting idea, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of Home Office Ministers and ensure that he gets a proper, substantive reply.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) asked some important questions about terrorist finance, and I shall ensure that the Treasury responds to them. He and other Members may be interested to know that while we were having this debate, the United Nations Security Council supported the new resolution by 14 votes to zero. That is a great achievement for British foreign policy, and I am sure that we will receive the support of all Members, given that the international community can now reunite around the redeveloping of Iraq in peace, security and freedom.
That leads me on to the thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on the future of the United Nations. She made some important points about how we can create an international framework and international institutions that deal effectively with new threats in a changing
world, and about the balance that needs to be struck between the traditional sanctity given to national sovereignty, and the real concerns that exist about the humanitarian disasters, torture and genocide that can occur within a country's borders. In the past decade or so, the United Nations has not been terribly effective in stopping such things, and I hope that we will give more attention to that important point in future debates in this House.The hon. Member for Gosport raised the issue of asylum, but his timing is strange when figures published today show a dramatic fall in asylum applications in this country.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |