| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Nigel Griffiths: The programme before the summer recess is under considerable pressure, but we will do our best. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and tell him the views of the hon. Member and other hon. Members about the importance of the issue. May I say, too, that I am heartened that so many Members show such concern about this important issue?
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): May we have a debate on sentencing policy for very serious crimes? Such a debate would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House warmly to endorse the 28-year minimum sentence to be served by the vicious killers of Jody Dobrowski, who was murdered for no reason other than that he was a homosexual. That 28-year sentence will undoubtedly act as a deterrent. A debate would also give us an opportunity both to ask why murderers who kill people in exactly the same way as Mr. Dobrowski’s murderers do not have to serve anything like the same sentence and why that deterrent is not deemed necessary in such cases.
Nigel Griffiths: It is a serious issue. As I have said, I do not think that the pressures on the parliamentary programme will allow a debate before the recess, but I am sure that there will be an opportunity in the spillover or the new Session for a debate on this important issue in which all hon. Members will want to take part.
Greg
Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con): It is helpful that the
Deputy Leader of the House has put on the record the fact that the
Government have been so long in office that they can dismiss
people’s concerns about the loss of green space in our towns and
cities as trivial or irrelevant. Our constituents, and some of his hon.
Friend’s constituents, will be interested to discover that that
is the case. However, can he say whether the Government Whips will
object to my private Member’s Bill when it is debated next week,
as they did last time?
Nigel Griffiths: No, I am not aware of the arrangements for that debate. I am sure that if the hon. Member has adequate support for his private Member’s Bill he will secure a closure, just as other hon. Members do. A measure of his support will be whether 100 Members are in Chamber to secure that closure and the Bill’s progress.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Has the Deputy Leader of the House seen early-day motions 2445 and 2038 relating to access to inhaled insulin products for diabetics?
[That this House disagrees with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s recent technology appraisal document which proposes the restriction of access to inhaled insulin products on the NHS to patients with ‘a proven injection phobia diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist’; is concerned that diabetes sufferers often delay treatment for as long as four years due to a fear of injections, risking the complications of heart disease, blindness and kidney failure, a situation that will only be compounded by attaching the unfortunate stigma of mental illness to those with a phobia of needles; expresses concern at the additional workload that will be placed on already overstretched NHS psychiatric services; and believes that the judgement of expert clinicians should be trusted in managing each individual patient’s condition.]
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence says that before people may have access to such products, there must be a letter from a psychiatrist or a psychologist stating that they have a phobia about needles. Some diabetics inject four or five times a day. This is surely a quality of life issue, not just a phobia about needles. May we have a statement from a Minister in the Department of Health to say that inhaled insulin products will be made widely available to any diabetic who wants access to them?
Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman can table a question to the Secretary of State for Health on that matter and get her response, rather than taking it from me second hand.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): May we have an urgent debate on unemployment in Shropshire? Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that today the Office for National Statistics confirmed to my office that between May 2005 and May 2006 unemployment in Shropshire rose by a whopping 30 per cent. and in The Wrekin parliamentary constituency by 32 per cent.? Does not that underline the importance of the Ministry of Defence giving the defence training review to RAF Cosford, thereby safeguarding 2,2200 jobs and expanding jobs throughout Shropshire and the west midlands?
Nigel
Griffiths: I have spent my political life condemning
unemployment and fighting for more jobs, and, with2.5 million
more jobs since 1997, I obviously regret any job losses. No Government
have done more than the present Government to ensure that people who do
lose jobs, often for structural reasons in the economy, are
re-employed, often in skilled jobs, and reskilled. That
has happened time and again in community after community in Britain, so
I am happy to ensure that the local Jobcentre Plus works with the hon.
Gentleman and his constituents to look at the skills that they have and
the opportunities that are available to ensure that that trend, which
has given us more people in work than at any time in our history,
continues.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I have noticed that the Government have slipped out a U-turn in a written statement today on Sunday trading. Will the Deputy Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an oral statement or even make time for a debate on the matter, or is the Government’s reluctance to debate the subject on the Floor of the House in any way linked to the fact that the constituents of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are able to enjoy the benefits of deregulation of Sunday trading, yet are depriving my constituents and people in England generally of the same opportunity to work and shop, if they want to, on a Sunday?
Nigel Griffiths: It is very important that the Secretary of State has put out a statement in an appropriate manner. He was in the Chamber an hour ago answering questions at the Dispatch Box. The position on Sunday trading is clear. There is no demand. In the consultation of 1,000, the representations were from hon. Members, Church groups and others overwhelmingly for the status quo in England. The Scottish system is quite acceptable to people in Scotland, where there is no demand for change either. Indeed, there are some communities that I could name in the United Kingdom where any opening of a retail outlet on a Sunday is not only frowned on, but does not happen. We live in a pluralistic society. My right hon. Friend, having held a consultation and taken the evidence, has concluded that there is not an overwhelming demand for change. I would be happy for a debate to be held in the House, to see how many hon. Members on the Opposition as well as the Government Benches support change, but the early-day motion was signed by well over 200 people demanding the status quo. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not just Church groups and others that objected to an extension of Sunday trading. The workers, through the shop workers union, USDAW, objected to their hours being extended. I am not sure whether I have an interest to declare in that, since my constituency has had support from USDAW in the past. If so, that is duly noted.
Points of Order
12.23 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you intervened on a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), ruling that he could not discuss the Deputy Prime Minister’s links with an American businessman while that is being considered by the Parliamentary Commissioner. All of us in the Chamber naturally accepted your ruling as definitive. Since then, however, the Deputy Prime Minister has broadcast for 25 minutes on the “Today” programme on the issue. I should be grateful if you now ruled, first, whether in so doing, he was acting within the spirit of your ruling, and secondly, now that he has done so, whether the House should be free to discuss the matter. I raise this because I know that you, like me, believe the Chamber should be the pre-eminent place that holds Ministers to account and discusses issues of concern to our constituents, and it would be bizarre if, as an unintended consequence of the rules of our House, we alone were not able to discuss what the rest of the nation and the broadcasting media are free to debate with the Deputy Prime Minister himself.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He gave me some notice of the point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister’s radio interview has no bearing on my ruling yesterday, which related only to a particular question. Perhaps I can take the opportunity to clarify matters.
The House has established a mechanism for examining complaints relating to the code of conduct for Members. While those procedures are being followed, it is not appropriate for such complaints to be pursued in the House. The ministerial code is a separate matter, for which the Prime Minister is responsible, and questions on the application of the ministerial code in particular cases may be raised. I hope that helps the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that you are a devotee of the Radio 4 “Today” programme and might well have heard the rather long interview between Mr. John Humphrys and the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope you appreciate our frustration when we listen to such a debate, but cannot take part in it ourselves. Is the way round this for you to persuade the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement so that, like John Humphrys, I and other right hon. and hon. Members can ask him questions?
Mr.
Speaker: To clarify matters, Mrs. Martin
is a devotee of GMTV, and upstairs she is the boss. Seriously, I think
I have clarified matters. On the code of conduct for Members, it must
be borne in mind that I am seeking to protect every hon. Member,
whether it be the Deputy Prime Minister or the two new Members who came
into the House only a few days ago. If there is a complaint against
them, we, the House, have set up the procedure of the Parliamentary
Commissioner. I seek to protect everyone so that they at least get a
fair
hearing before the Parliamentary Commissioner. During that period, the
matter is not pursued on the Floor of the House. As I said to the right
hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on the ministerial
code, questions can be asked and there is nothing to prevent hon.
Members from putting down questions at the Table Office, and I
understand that that has already been done. There is no problem in
seeking answers from any Minister of the Crown if they have a
responsibility under the ministerial
code.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the Secretary of State for Defence is present while I raise the point of order. I know that you have previously advised disgruntled Members on a number of occasions that the Chair is not responsible for the adequacy or otherwise of ministerial replies. Nevertheless, I draw your attention to the reply that I received yesterday to a question to the Secretary of State for Defence, asking
“whether he was informed of the proposed content relating to retention of the nuclear deterrent in the long-term of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Mansion House speech, prior to its delivery.”
The reply that I received states simply:
“I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a range of issues.”—[ Official Report, 5 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1107W.]
Do you agree that that does not even attempt to answer the question? In asking the question, I was well aware of the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence has those discussions. If he does not wish to answer the question, it would perhaps be more courteous to state that he refuses to do so.
Mr. Speaker: I will not be drawn into an argument about the quality of ministerial replies. The hon. Gentleman knows that he can always ask the Secretary of State for Defence another question.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise the issue of answers to parliamentary questions. On Wednesday29 March, I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State for Health
“how many and what percentage of people were registered with an NHS dentist on 31 March 2006 in each constituency in England.”
I received the following response:
“The number of people registered with a national health service dentist by constituency as at 31 December 2005 has been placed in the Library.”—[ Official Report, 18 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 209W.]
I have that information here. On Wednesday 28 June, I tabled precisely the same question, to which I received the reply:
“This information is not collected in the form requested.”
I believe that the information is not collected in the form requested because new contracts came into force on 1 April. Ministers are trying to avoid responsibility for the fact that many people are not registered with NHS dentists. How can I get the Minister to respond to the same question that I tabled six months earlier, even if the response is embarrassing?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to tell the hon. Lady how to frame the next question. Perhaps she will obtain a response if she asks the Minister why she has been so inconsistent.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |