Business of the House

HC Deb 07 May 1998 vol 311 cc863-72 3.31 pm

Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk)

May I ask the Leader of the House for next week's business.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor)

The business for next week will be as follows.

MONDAY 11 MAY—Second Reading of the Competition Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 12 MAY—Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill (second day).

WEDNESDAY 13 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Social Security Bill.

THURSDAY 14 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill.

FRIDAY 15 MAY—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.

MONDAY 18 MAY—Opposition Day [11th allotted day].

There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

TUESDAY 19 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Scotland Bill.

WEDNESDAY 20 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.

Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (first day).

THURSDAY 21 MAY—Debate on the common agricultural policy on a Government motion. Details will be given in the Official Report.

The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 20 May there will be a debate on fisheries monitoring under the common fisheries policy in European Standing Committee A.

Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Thursday 21 May:

Floor of the House—Relevant European Community document: 7073/98, Agenda 2000: Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-xxvi (1997–98).

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 6123/98, Fisheries Monitoring under the Common Fisheries Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC I 55-xxii (1997–98).]

Mrs. Shephard

I thank the right hon. Lady for that statement, and for giving the House two weeks' business. I also thank her for rearranging the business, following the suggestion that there might have been a debate next week on the work of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. It is extremely courteous of her to be so accommodating to the Opposition's needs, and I am very grateful.

I understand the problems that the right hon. Lady has in fitting the Government's legislative programme into the time remaining for this Session, although, as I have remarked many times, the problems are of the Government's own making. Nevertheless, given the private notice question yesterday on Sierra Leone and the fact that next month the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union ends, I must repeat my request for a debate on foreign affairs, and especially for the Foreign Secretary's reassurance to the House that his avowed aim to pursue an ethical foreign policy remains on course.

Once again, I must ask the right hon. Lady when the Government will publish the Bill on the registration of political parties. It has been helpful that Opposition parties have been involved in the preparation of the Bill, as the right hon. Lady correctly pointed out on earlier occasions when I raised the matter, but that is not the same as seeing the Bill and being able to study it. I have consistently argued that we need to see and study the Bill alongside the constitutional Bills that are going through the House. We were promised the Bill shortly after Easter, and that time, however vaguely defined, has now passed.

Hon. Members will have received their questionnaires from the Modernisation Committee on possible changes to voting procedures. Can the right hon. Lady confirm my impression that changes to Prime Minister's Question Time, which were rather abruptly introduced a year ago by the Prime Minister, were for a trial period? Does she have any plans to give hon. Members the chance to comment on how that experiment has worked—apart, of course, from halving at a stroke the number of times each week the Prime Minister must bring himself to the House of Commons?

As Conservative Members have made clear, we welcome the judicial impartiality with which Lord Justice Phillips is approaching his work on the bovine spongiform encephalopathy inquiry. Is it not all the more regrettable, therefore, that the Prime Minister, in saying on 4 March on the Floor of the House that the Conservatives "gave the country BSE", has clearly made up his mind about the outcome of what he and his Government have billed as an impartial inquiry? He apparently has no qualms about pre-empting the work of Lord Justice Phillips and his colleagues.

We should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would arrange for the Prime Minister to confirm or otherwise whether he regards the inquiry as impartial and, if he does, to withdraw his unfortunate remarks on 4 March. I raise that matter because my correspondence with the Prime Minister making that simple request has been terminated rather peremptorily by a letter from a private secretary refusing to answer the point. Apart from the ill-tempered discourtesy that that reveals, and the fact that it is hardly a demonstration of open government in practice, it shows that, as we have all learnt over the past year, saying is one thing and doing is another for the Government.

Mrs. Taylor

On the last point, I have no knowledge of the correspondence to which the right hon. Lady refers, so I cannot comment on that at this stage. I am glad that the right hon. Lady again acknowledged that we have been able to announce two weeks' business. We have been able to do that ever since we came back after the summer recess and possibly some time before that. As we get further into the summer, however, it may be more difficult to provide precise details of business so far in advance, but I shall endeavour to do so whenever possible.

The right hon. Lady acknowledged that we have taken off the modernisation debate which was planned for next Thursday. We are very short of time, but we intend to reschedule the debate at a time that will be more convenient to her. I know that there are extremely good reasons why the Opposition wanted the debate to be moved.

The right hon. Lady referred to a foreign affairs debate in the context of a debate on the presidency; that was mentioned last week as well. I can confirm that I intend that there should be a full day's pre-Council debate before the Cardiff summit meeting. That would be helpful to everyone. I cannot give a precise date, although it may be helpful to the House to state that that will be a full day's debate, according to present plans.

As the right hon. Lady acknowledged, we have been extremely helpful in providing for as much consultation on the registration of political parties Bill as possible, not only with the official Opposition but with other parties. I expect that we shall see that Bill shortly. We will certainly have the normal period between publication and Second Reading, so the right hon. Lady should have no fears on that. However, I do not accept her proposition that it is relevant to other constitutional changes introduced by other legislation.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the questionnaire sent out by the Modernisation Committee on voting procedure. I hope that hon. Members will remember to return the questionnaire on time so that we can get a full picture of the views of the House.

As for the changes to Prime Minister's questions, the right hon. Lady managed to keep a straight face when asking about the trial. I think that it is the Leader of the Opposition, rather than anyone else, who is on trial. A quick check on the time that the Prime Minister spends on Prime Minister's questions will show that, in the past 12 months, he has spent more time answering questions at the Dispatch Box than did the previous Prime Minister during a similar period. I think that the procedure is working quite well.

As to the right hon. Lady's complaints about BSE, she knows that it is an impartial and important inquiry. The simple, basic and irrefutable fact is that the Conservatives were in power when the problems arose and their mishandling of the situation led to many difficulties.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the affairs of some 10 years ago and the active role that then Ministers of the Crown played in breaking the United Nations embargo on the export of arms into areas of conflict and potential conflict? Some of those Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for Westminster, invited industrialists to falsify documents so that arms could be sold to Iraq. Those same arms were used against British soldiers—

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the wrong constituency. When making serious allegations such as this, it is extremely important that he refers to the correct constituency representative.

Mr. Rogers

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Chelsea, who was Minister for Trade and who then became Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Madam Speaker

Order. Kensington and Chelsea. Let us get it right.

Mr. Rogers

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to emphasise that I am referring to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). The Government of the day broke not only the United Nations embargo but the guidelines laid down by the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in view of the extreme hypocrisy shown by the Government at that time?

Mrs. Taylor

I am tempted to say that, in view of the detail that my hon. Friend has provided, I am not sure that he even needs to apply for an Adjournment debate on that subject—but perhaps he might like to do so.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

May I express some disappointment—although I understand the reasons for the decision—at the fact that we shall not debate the Modernisation Committee reports? Not only does the House wish to make some advances on the issues that the Committee has raised, but I think that we need a more general debate about the priorities of that Committee. I think that the right hon. Lady will agree that there is much pressure from both sides of the House for the Committee to turn its attention to the important issues of working hours, the parliamentary day, week and year and how Parliament handles private Members' Bills. I hope that we shall have that debate before too long.

I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that there is now a gap in the programme next Thursday. Could we fill it with a debate on an issue that clearly concerns many hon. Members: the Foreign Office and arms sales? I share the view of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that the humbug and hypocrisy that we have seen from the Conservatives on this issue in the past 48 hours have been breathtaking and mind-boggling. It is as if we do not remember—I am sure that the Leader of the House does—the way in which the previous Government treated the Scott report. Not only was it undermined in advance, but, as soon as it appeared and a statement was made in the House, the Government refused to act on its central conclusion. Therefore, I hope that the first lesson we have learnt from the past 24 hours is that we must take a proper, dispassionate view of such issues rather than the prejudiced view adopted by the Opposition.

I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that we should have learnt some lessons from that episode and that we should not repeat the mistakes that were made then. I draw her attention to the fact that, yesterday, the Foreign Secretary admitted that it took two months for the letter about Sierra Leone from my noble Friend Lord Avebury in the other place to reach the Minister's desk. That is quite extraordinary. I hope that we can have an early explanation on why Ministers were kept in the dark.

In response to the debate on 2 April opened by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), promised answers on issues precisely relevant to the behaviour of the Foreign Office and its monitoring of arms sales. We have not had those answers. For example, we still do not know what biological weapons were constructed as a result of the supply of materials from Britain. Clearly, matters such as Iraq, germ warfare and the role of the Foreign Office need a great deal more attention.

Finally, surely by now we should know whether the Government intend to ratify the Ottawa convention.

Mrs. Taylor

I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point about questions and the hon. Gentleman will know that we know the Government's position on the Ottawa convention. We signed the convention in December and we have made it clear publicly that we intend to ratify it as soon as parliamentary time allows.

On the hon. Gentleman's other points about the private notice question answered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday, the inquiries which are now to take place should not be prejudged. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there are clearly differences. As much information as is available at this stage has been given to the House. An inquiry is being conducted by Customs and Excise and there will also be an internal Foreign and Commonwealth Office inquiry. The House will be kept fully informed of the results of both those investigations in due course.

The hon. Gentleman's points on modernisation are well taken. It is important to have a debate to consider not only the reports that have been published so far, but to take stock of what the House wishes the Modernisation Committee to consider next. The Committee has already decided to consider the parliamentary week and year and we are to have a survey on voting methods. There is much to justify a debate and there is great interest in the House on that matter.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

On 1 July 1994, we had a full day's debate on veterans' issues and it was one of the best attended Friday debates. Hon. Members from all corners of the House expressed the wish that we should have such a debate again, perhaps annually. In view of the interests of all hon. Members in veterans' issues, such as dependants and war widows, will my right hon. Friend try to find an opportunity for a debate when hon. Members—the overwhelming majority, I think—have an opportunity to air views on matters ranging from Gulf war syndrome, to the equal treatment of war widows in relation to local authority housing benefit and visiting of war graves? Such a debate would be most welcome to all hon. Members.

Mrs. Taylor

My hon. Friend has taken a specific interest in this matter for many years and I have listened to him carefully. He raises significant issues and he is right to say that they are of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall bear in mind his suggestion for a Friday debate later in the year. I cannot give any guarantee that it will be possible to fit in such a debate, but I shall not rule it out.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

I had intended to ask only one question, but will the right hon. Lady reconsider her reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? To dismiss the promised review of Prime Minister's questions simply on the issue of time does not take into account the great benefit to the Government of the Prime Minister having to be here only once a week and the great advantage to the Opposition of having the Prime Minister here twice a week. That is a considerable matter which needs review.

I come now to the question that I had originally intended to ask. The right hon. Lady knows that I pressed my Government many times for debates on Procedure Committee reports. I shall not do that, and I understand the reason for the deferment of the debate which was to take place next Thursday. However, is it not the case that no preparation has yet been made by the Government to bring in the necessary Standing Orders to deal with the first two reports of the Modernisation Committee and the recommendations in those reports, which were agreed by the House as long ago as the end of the summer? Surely there should be some positive action to bring those into operation.

Mrs. Taylor

Precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for could have happened if we had had the debate next Thursday. When I gave the provisional business last week, I announced that there would be a debate and motions on modernisation. I do not say that we shall get all the changes to Standing Orders, because I am keen that we should proceed on the basis of agreement. However, at the end of such a debate there will be an opportunity to endorse some of the Modernisation Committee's decisions.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

Will thought be given to widening the potential of the foreign affairs debate so that it includes third-world debt, which was last discussed in the House in an Adjournment debate on 3 March? Given the campaign by Christian Aid and others directed towards the G8 summit, it would be appropriate to include that matter in that debate.

Mrs. Taylor

There are many issues that we should like to have debated. The debate that I mentioned specifically relates to our presidency and to the Council meeting in June. There may be opportunities for other foreign affairs debates during the year. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development would like a debate on her portfolio. We are trying to fit in as many such debates as possible, but we may not be able to have them all. However, I shall bear all representations in mind.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)

The Leader of the House will be aware that the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and for Defence have received a letter signed by a number of former generals, admirals and air chief marshals, distinguished members of universities commenting on military affairs and many others, including retired diplomats from important posts connected with NATO, suggesting that it is wrong to expand NATO. As the Select Committee on Defence has also reported on NATO expansion but is in favour of it, does the Leader of the House agree that it is important to debate that vital issue in advance of the defence review so that we are better able to make an informed judgment?

Mrs. Taylor

A debate on NATO enlargement is on my list and I am trying to fit it in between Whit and the summer recess.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)

I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's response to the request that we make time to debate ratification of the Ottawa convention. It is of great concern to some of my constituents—Soroptimists and others—who have written to me about it. Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that it would be very sad if the first anniversary of Princess Diana's death were to pass without our having passed the necessary legislation?

Mrs. Taylor

We want to move as quickly as we can, but my hon. Friend and others will appreciate the weight of the programme before the House. As I said earlier, we have signed that convention and given clear assurances that we intend to ratify it as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.

Mr. Edward Garner (Harborough)

The right hon. Lady may know that last Thursday was the closing date for responses to the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper on legal aid reform. Most people who know anything about that subject have so far concluded that the proposals, both those originally advanced last October and the amended version pronounced last March, were economically illiterate and politically inept and will prove to be socially divisive. May we therefore have a debate at the earliest opportunity, following the Lord Chancellor's report on the consultation process, so that hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, who have not got their heads around this matter, can have an opportunity to do so?

Mrs. Taylor

One would not think from the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks that the review of legal aid is to sort out the mess that we inherited from the Conservative Government. There have been debates in this Parliament, but I shall bear in mind the suggestion that we should have another debate on legal aid. It is important that we review the situation so that the public can have confidence in the legal aid system, which was not the case under the previous Government.

Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch)

I wonder, first, whether my right hon. Friend can find time for a debate or a statement on recruitment of teachers, which is a particular problem in my area. There is a shortage of teachers when jobs are advertised.

Secondly, may we have a return to a specific Question Time on the European Union? The single currency is becoming a bigger and bigger issue and we must put it under the spotlight—something that it fully deserves and every hon. Member would welcome. I remind my right hon. Friend that the Tories abolished Question Time on the European Union and shifted it away from the spotlight. They are now keen to debate everything about Europe. Although they paraded themselves as great Euro-sceptics when in power, they were keen to shift the spotlight off it.

Mrs. Taylor

My hon. Friend raises two different points. There is a shortage of teachers in certain areas, and only in certain areas. He knows that the Department for Education and Employment is aware of the problem and is taking action on teacher recruitment, which I hope will help in his area. He could apply for an Adjournment debate, but that is the best I can offer, because there is no Government time for a debate on the Floor of the House.

I cannot accept the suggestion for a separate Question Time on EU matters, although I understand why my hon. Friend asked for that. EU-related matters come within a range of questions—not only Foreign Office questions, but Treasury questions and others. The current situation is best left.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)

Is the Leader of the House aware that a serious financial impropriety at our embassy in Amman was examined by the Public Accounts Committee in February 1997? It involved a sum of £333,000 in respect of forged life insurance bonds of dead pensioners. Lo and behold, less than a year later, another serious financial situation was highlighted in the appropriation accounts for 1996–97, class II, vote 1. It involved the sum of £109,000, and a senior accounting official is facing serious criminal charges. In examining that matter, the principal accounting officer said that it was to the Foreign Office's shame that such a thing should have happened twice in the same embassy.

We now find that senior Foreign Office officials are covering up licences to Sierra Leone in respect of arms. I repeat in the strongest terms the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for a debate in the House so that we can examine the conduct of senior Foreign Office officials who seem to be doing less than the high-standard job that one would expect of the Department.

Mrs. Taylor

I understand that the Public Accounts Committee highlighted several problems of that sort that occurred under the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman is simply highlighting some of the difficulties that arose when his party was in government. I have nothing to add to what I have said about a wider debate.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

Will the Leader of the House arrange as soon as possible for a Minister to report to the House on investigations into serious allegations that the United States Department of Defence at the Pentagon has attempted to hack into a computer of an organisation in my constituency? [Interruption.] Is she aware that the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has been investigating the activities of a number of dolphins, which were trained initially by the former Soviet Union, and more recently by Russia and Ukraine? Forty-three of those dolphins are now in the hands of other nationalities. The Pentagon is clearly interested in that. [Interruption.] Although the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has promised to give the Pentagon the report when it is completed, there is now clear evidence that, more recently, the Pentagon has attempted to hack into the society's computers. Will the Leader of the House assure me that the Government will investigate and that there will be a statement by the relevant Minister on those investigations?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

It sounds like David Icke.

Mrs. Taylor

I am receiving a great deal of advice from my hon. Friends about what I should say in answer to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know of any Department that has received any specific information on this matter, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman pass on any information of that kind. If he wants to raise the matter on the Floor of the House and get an answer from a Minister, he should try his luck with an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Before anything more is said about Sierra Leone, may we have an explanation on why, despite all this fuss about the debate on 12 March, no Conservative Member bothered to participate in it? It is a debate about which the Conservatives are now so fussed, or purport to be so fussed. Is it not a matter of record that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), was candid and referred to The Observer report in column 844 of Hansard? He said:

It talked about Britain's talks with hired killers, and about the Foreign Office admitting our ambassador's link to notorious mercenaries plotting against Sierra Leone's Government. Ironically, that was wrong."—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 844.1 It would be an abuse of business questions to go any further, but before people start making such criticisms, should they not read the full debate and see that my hon. Friend the Minister was candid?

Mrs. Taylor

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend is helpful to the House. I know that he would never abuse business questions. I have to agree with him that it would not be the first time Conservative Members had jumped in, not only without reading the debate but without any of them participating in it. Fortunately, I am not responsible for speeches from Conservative Members.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Given that fine buildings are important to millions of people in Britain and an attraction to tourists, can the right hon. Lady find time for an early debate or statement on the role and performance of English Heritage? I have to inform the right hon. Lady that I have received representations from constituents who have complained that delays in the determination of applications for grant aid of six months and more are becoming commonplace. Hon. Members will recognise that the effect of such delays is to hold up work that we would all recognise as vital to the national heritage. Will the right hon. Lady see her way to trying to assist in that matter?

Mrs. Taylor

I cannot promise a debate on that matter, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House at an appropriate time to explain his conduct when he was standing in for the Prime Minister at Question Time on 8 April? He appeared to have an attack of amnesia and refused to answer a question, because he claimed that it was "not truthful" for me to have stated in that question that he, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister had all been supporters of the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 1980s. If the Deputy Prime Minister were to be brought before the House, perhaps he would explain why he has singularly failed to acknowledge, let alone reply to, a letter from me including the exchange in question and asking him to say what was not truthful in the statement that I made in that question.

Mrs. Taylor

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is brave or foolish in asking the Deputy Prime Minister to come back and batter him again, as he did at that Prime Minister's Question Time. The Prime Minister has missed only one Prime Minister's Question Time, and he did so because of the important events and the delicate situation in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has therefore had only one opportunity to stand in for the Prime Minister, and it was a very entertaining, informative and thoroughly enjoyable occasion for Labour Members.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

I wonder whether I might return to a point raised by my right hon. Friends the shadow Leader of the House and the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), which the right hon. Lady rather skilfully managed to skirt around. Will she tell us whether the change in holding Prime Minister's Question Time once a week rather than twice a week—which is far more than only a change of time—is for an experimental period or for the duration of this Parliament? The impression that was given last year—when that arbitrary change was announced without any consultation with anyone—was that it would be for a period, and that the House would then be able to pass a judgment. Will the right hon. Lady please confirm precisely the position?

Mrs. Taylor

When the changes were made, I said that we would keep the position under review. We have been keeping the position under review, although I have received very few complaints about the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time has been going. Although we are always willing to consider good ideas, the current situation is extremely satisfactory. I can think of no way of further improving Prime Minister's questions—other than by having better quality questions from the Opposition.