House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Mar 1999 (pt 6)

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for details of next week's business and an indication of business for the following week. We welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady has found time for a debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

Can it be right that at no time in the four weeks following the constitutional crisis that hit the European Union on Monday will the House of Commons debate that subject? Has not the House led the world in showing how the Executive are held to account, in combating fraud in the public sector and in promoting democratic accountability? Should not the voice of this House be heard in the critical weeks that lie ahead, not least on the proposed pay-offs for some members of the Commission and on the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others for validating future nominations?

Should not we also debate the crisis at the nationality and immigration department of the Home Office, where only six per cent. of calls get through and where people begin to start to queue at four in the morning? People end up being trapped in this country for six months or more because the Home Office has their passport. That department also has a backlog of 200,000 case files--occupying some 14 miles of shelving--many of which are inaccessible, because the garage in which they are stored is not considered safe to access.

Key meetings are being held this weekend in Washington and Rambouillet on the future of Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we might expect statements on either or both of those meetings at the beginning of next week?

Finally, the Leader of the House said on Tuesday that she would provide time for a debate on the White Paper on the reform of the second Chamber, now that the House of Lords Bill has left this House. When will that debate take place?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this House and this country have taken a strong lead in combating fraud and promoting sound management, including sound financial management. I take his point that, because of the Easter recess, no debate is scheduled to consider the EU crisis. Equally, until the Berlin special summit next week, for example, it will not be clear what shape the relevant discussions will take.

I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about pay-offs, but he will be aware that the contracts which have led to such payments long pre-date this Government. In so far as we have redundancy arrangements in this House for members of the Executive, they do not depend on behaviour.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about validating nominations for EU Commissioners. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, the Conservatives have made their own nomination for the new Commission--accession to which would normally follow the European elections--without seeing the necessity to change the procedures. Indeed, they saw no need to do so when they were in power.

18 Mar 1999 : Column 1263

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the crisis in the handling of immigration and nationality cases. All Members of Parliament are aware of those concerns and the problems caused. Part of the reason for the crisis is the work that is now having to be undertaken to lay the foundation for a better service--including work on providing new information technology systems. As for the nature and scale of the crisis, all those who were Members of this House eight to 10 ago years will be well aware that whatever the current crisis might be, it pales into insignificance compared with the situation then. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the days when, under the Government of which he was a member, the backlog was six months' worth of post, which was not even opened, never mind dealt with. We need no lessons from the Conservatives on this matter.

We are doing our best to keep the House informed of the outcome of the meeting in Rambouillet and of the discussions on Northern Ireland. It is not clear what the outcome will be, but I will bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement. I cannot tell him, at this moment, whether I expect there to be the need for one at the beginning of next week.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have undertaken to find time for a debate on the White Paper on House of Lords reform. It will not be held in the near future, but certainly it will happen before the summer.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): May we have a debate on the role of the independent Members of Parliament throughout this century? Our parliamentary system has benefited from, and will continue to be based on, party political systems, but is it not right to look at what has happened in the past--and in recent years, as we now have a solitary independent Member of Parliament? Although we normally disapprove of politicians breaking their election promises, the role that has been played by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)--which has been unique and valuable in many respects, including his contributions on landmines, the honours system and warfare--has been so important that the honourable thing for him to do would be to break that election promise, seek election in Tatton next time and seek also the multiplication of his kind in this House.

Madam Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman give notice to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)?

Mr. Flynn: I did not, but--

Madam Speaker: If he had, the hon. Member for Tatton would probably have been too embarrassed to turn up.

Mrs. Beckett: It is rare that any hon. Member needs to be given notice of being paid great compliments. Of course, I take my hon. Friend's point. The role played by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has attracted praise. I would normally hesitate to be drawn into commenting on the affairs of another political party, and I feel even greater caution when it is a political party of one.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Following the question from the right hon. Member for North-West

18 Mar 1999 : Column 1264

Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on the developing situations in Kosovo and Northern Ireland and the European crisis, does the Leader of the House agree that if, particularly following the Berlin summit, it proves necessary to have a debate before Easter, the House could continue to sit on Maundy Thursday? We would all prefer to avoid that, but I hope that she agrees that it would be wrong for us to adjourn for our recess without debating those important matters.

We also hope for a statement before the recess on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the milk industry. The dairy sector is already in dire trouble, and the continuing indecision about the report and the failure to publish it so that it can be debated is causing huge concern. Will the Leader of the House communicate to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that milk producers are not in a monopolistic position, although milk buyers are in an oligopolistic position, and ask him to make a statement?

The Leader of the House may have noted that some questions were asked yesterday of the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the labelling of genetically modified food. He was not able to make a statement to the House, but I understand that a statement was made to a press conference this morning. Will she acknowledge that the issue is far too important for such treatment? There is wide public concern, and the House should be the first to hear of the Government's proposals.

Next Section

Index

Home Page