| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: First, may I apologise to the House for something completely different? Two pages of the business statement were stuck together and I did not tell the House something that I am sure it wishes passionately to know.
On Wednesday 9 June, there will be a debate on the global navigation satellite system in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 9 June:
European Standing Committee A--Relevant European Union document: 6528/99, Global Navigation Satellite System; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34-xvii;(1998-99).]
I apologise for denying the House that important information.
I have not lost sight of the Lords White Paper, and of course we will return to that matter. As for what the right hon. Gentleman called the shameful decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, I have looked for the most notable and sensible precedents to follow. In 1985-86, when the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member and a supporter were passing major social security legislation--which was more substantial even than the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill--
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
That was then, this is now.
Mrs. Beckett:
Yes. The then Government guillotined the Bill in Committee and provided two days on the Floor of the House to debate the remaining stages and the
In this instance, the Government provided one day's debate on the Floor of the House and were not asked to allocate more time. There were 13 hours of debate on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill on that one day, so we have already discussed the legislation for the same amount of time as was allocated in 1985-86. The Government have now provided another full day for debate. It is quite clear that we are providing more than adequate time for the debate should the Opposition wish to use it actually to debate the Bill--but that is a matter for them.
The right hon. Gentleman asked that amendments to the Health Bill be tabled next week. I cannot give him that assurance today because I genuinely do not know, however, I shall certainly draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Government are currently finalising the Food Standards Bill in light of public consultation and the report of discussions in the Food Standards Select Committee. We aim to introduce the legislation in this Session if time is available.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a string of things--GM foods, drugs, freedom of information and Kosovo--and inquired as to when announcements might be made. We will endeavour to make as many announcements as we can before the recess. In response to the right hon. Gentleman's observations about presentation rather than policy and the comments by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on the radio this morning, I simply point out that the document which has been leaked--and about which there has been much excitement--states that it is important to write publications in clear language so that people can understand what is said. I do not think there is anything revolutionary about that--especially as the original memo, which is quoted in the Friends of the Earth press release, goes on to say:
As for the matter of statements, the Government endeavour at all times to ensure that important statements are made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman referred to statements being made outside the House, and I understand that hon. Members sometimes wish to explore subjects more fully. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did announce the policy change to which the right hon. Gentleman referred--which, I mightadd, was leaked extensively--in a written parliamentary question. So it was already announced to the House: there was simply no statement. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), apologised fully to the House yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman and all Opposition Members are perfectly well aware that the Home Secretary is assiduous in his courtesy to the House and in his attempts to ensure that the House is informed
properly. As to the Opposition's pretence that the Government somehow withhold statements from the House--
Mrs. Beckett:
I do wish that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) could possess his soul in some slight silence--Whips are normally silent. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on that occasion.
In the 1992-93 Session, the then Government made some 96 statements about Government policy. In the equivalent period this Session, this Government have made 117.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax):
The Leader of the House will have heard about the bombing of a hospital in Belgrade last night, in which three people were killed and members of staff and patients were injured. Given the increasing number of civilians who are being killed, and the growing belief that NATO is running out of military targets and that there could be more such tragedies, will the Government initiate a debate before the recess on the effects of the bombing on the civilian population in Yugoslavia, both in Serbia and in Kosovo?
Mrs. Beckett:
Everyone in the House regrets and deeply deplores the fact that there have been civilian casualties. My hon. Friend refers to the belief that NATO is running out of military targets. I understand--I believe that this is not contested--that it is clear that the target was a military barracks not far from the hospital, and possibly one of the bombs aimed at those barracks went astray. As to the effects of that, at the moment we have only limited information because the Serbian Government are not allowing people into the area. Clearly, we shall make every attempt to find out as much information as possible.
I cannot offer my hon. Friend a special debate on that particular aspect of the matter, but I assure her that the Government will continue to make statements and find time for debates on all the issues surrounding that action.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is widespread and genuine confusion about the Government's position on genetically modified food and crops? Every day, we seem to receive conflicting reports. Will she arrange for a full statement and a full debate so that we can find out precisely what action the Government intend to take on those extremely important issues? Those are of concern not only to farmers and consumers, but to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the proposition put before him by my party that this is a classic case that the royal commission on environmental pollution, which has already done useful work on the subject, could be asked to revisit?
We understand why the Government did not make the statement that was expected today on the draft Bill on freedom of information. We have all been waiting so long for that statement that two or three days' delay is not a disaster. However, will the right hon. Lady now guarantee
that there will be a statement when the draft Billis published, which we anticipate will be next week, and that there will be a recognition of the concern that the original intentions set out by the Home Secretary appear to have been diluted?
Will the right hon. Lady agree also that the situation in Scotland--and, for all I know, in Wales--means that it is extremely important for us to make progress on that matter in this House? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the new Minister for Justice in Scotland, may be able to make more progress on it than is being made in this Parliament.
Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that open government and freedom of information in relation to the activities of the European institutions will also be addressed, albeit separately?
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman asked about the conflicting reports and confusion about GM foods and crops. I agree that there is more confusion than there should be, but that is because people seem to want to sow confusion. For example, I heard such reports from people in the news media and, I am sorry to say, normally respected organisations that are campaigning on this matter.
The Government chief scientist was extensively quoted this morning, and he has made it plain that he was misquoted and misreported. I have his full letter before me in which he refers to what he believes is the only scientifically defensible position and says:
"Ministers needed to guard against the charge that the Government was seeking to influence the findings of the paper."
It must be quite obvious that the Government are trying only to make policy clear. There does not seem to be anything in that document other than sheer common sense.
"I do not see a problem"--
with the Government's stance. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the letter has been reported in a way that seeks to imply, and indeed asserts, that the Government chief scientist is in dispute with the Government's position.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |