| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Has the right hon. Lady seen early-day motion 1714?
[That this House welcomes the acknowledgement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that his responsibilities for competition policy require him 'both to act fairly and impartially and to be seen to do so'; notes that he satisfied himself he could take decisions about the British Airways/American Airlines alliance, and 'having discussed it with officials' decided he should determine whether the proposed acquisition by BSkyB of Manchester United be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; calls upon him to explain why he concluded that he will be seen to be acting fairly and impartially in these cases, despite the acceptance by the New Millennium Experience Company of sponsorship from British Airways and Bskyb totalling £24 million; further notes that the Director General of Fair Trading is investigating the profitability of supermarkets, including Tesco which has committed sponsorship to the NMEC of £12 million; is concerned that the NMEC is negotiating with the Ford Motor Company over a £12 million sponsorship when it may lay off workers at Dagenham and when the DGFT is about to investigate UK car prices; is concerned that companies may appear to be compromised by the refusal of the Secretary of State to separate his role as regulator and sole shareholder of the NMEC; and calls upon him to give up his position with the NMEC immediately or step aside from any regulatory role regarding any industry involved in NMEC sponsorship.]
Will the right hon. Lady arrange a debate on the difficulties arising from the different interests of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the issue of interests and understandings for someone who holds the important post of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is always kept under review by the Ministers involved and by proper officials. It has been confirmed repeatedly that my right hon. Friend does not have a conflict of interest.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud):
Yesterday's statement on welfare reform by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was very welcome, but will my right hon. Friend discuss with him the urgent need for widowers' rights to be promoted, because the existing anomalies are unacceptable?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks can and will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. Welfare reform is a major programme that is being conducted benefit by benefit and service by service. I feel confident that further announcements will be made in due course.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
Is it possible to arrange an early debate on the Government's energy policy? An application is pending for 15 wind turbines that will stretch from Pendle, a neighbouring constituency, into Ribble Valley, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty which attracts tourists and is used largely for agriculture. There is another application for about 350 wind turbines in Wales. If we have one more wind turbine in Wales, it is likely to take off on a windy day--not the answer to devolution for which we were looking. For a small fraction of the cost that goes towards subsidising turbines, energy conservation measures could save more energy than could ever be generated by those useless, ugly and unwanted wind turbines.
Mrs. Beckett:
I take heed of the hon. Gentleman's request. He will know that there are a variety of ways in which to pursue the opportunity to raise such issues, especially if they are constituency related--in Adjournment debates and so on. I will, of course, draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with such matters.
Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan):
Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the accountability of quangos set up by the previous Government between now and the date they are likely to be wound up? I refer in particular to the Cardiff Bay development corporation and its cavalier treatment of charter fishing vessels owned by my constituents which sail out of Cardiff bay. Up to a dozen small businesses could be destroyed and, I am afraid, people are desperate. I spoke today to Skipper Steve Jones of the Lady Helen; my impression was that, unless the development corporation behaves in an acceptable manner, people may take desperate measures.
Mrs. Beckett:
I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know of his great regard for his constituents' interests. I feel confident that he has taken steps to draw the matter to the attention of my parliamentary colleagues, but I fear that I cannot promise him a debate in Government time in the near future. Perhaps he might pursue the matter through an Adjournment debate.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon):
May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the Labour party manifesto commitment to end
Mrs. Beckett:
I am deeply touched by the care with which hon. Members have read the Labour party manifesto and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we stand by its contents. I fear, however, that, as he will know, it is always difficult for a Government to find time for other measures, no matter how important and worth while the subject. I take his points about the seriousness with which those matters should be discussed and the opportunity that has been made in the other place. I cannot undertake to find time before the end of the Session, even for such an important measure.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to resolve the ministerial muddle over the future of the Post Office? The right hon. Lady will recall that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, who is responsible for the Post Office--the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)--announced on 16 May last year a review of the options for the future of the Post Office with a view in particular to removing "unnecessary and damaging shackles" on it. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues will be aware that, since then, there has largely been an eerie silence in public, punctuated by occasional briefings to some journalists that the Government favour a radical move, and counter-briefings to others that they do not. Is it not time that Ministers stopped arguing like ferrets in a sack, came clean and announced their proposals for the future in the interests of management, employees and customers of the Post Office?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter with me today, since we have just had Trade and Industry questions--
Mr. Bercow:
The matter did not come up. The question was not reached.
Mrs. Beckett:
That has never stopped the hon. Gentleman before. I feel confident, knowing the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, that, had he really tried, he could have worked the matter into some question or other.
There is no confusion about the future of the Post Office. The Government are committed both to giving it greater commercial freedom and to its success. As for talk about removing shackles and concern about its future, all I can say is that when the Tory party had responsibility for those matters, it made an awful mess.
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove):
May I ask the Leader of the House in her capacity as Chair of the
Mrs. Beckett:
I do not wish to pre-empt any of the processes of the Queen's Speech, but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I strongly share the view that there is room for improvement of the ways in which we scrutinised legislation in the past, which would immeasurably improve the quality of the legislation and perhaps even our efficiency in dealing with it. I share the hon. Gentleman's view and I can assure him that those matters are under consideration.
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea):
The right hon. Lady has told us that, on Monday, we shall debate the security services. As she knows and as many hon. Members will have heard, Ministers frequently take refuge in the answer that they cannot discuss something because it relates to security matters. Would it be in order to ask a Minister whether the assessments of individual Cabinet members and their possible security risk are submitted in the first instance to the Prime Minister or to Mr. Alastair Campbell?
"unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists"?
She has redefined a manifesto commitment as not necessarily applying to the Parliament concerned--which makes that merely a commitment to keep it in the manifesto--but does she accept that the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, which was steered through all its stages in the House of Lords by the Labour peer Lady Turner of Camden, would be a worthwhile measure to end the institutionalised, widespread and systematic discrimination against homosexuals? As the Member in charge of the Bill in this place, I wonder whether Government time could be found in this spillover period to debate and legislate on that important matter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |