House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Oct 1999 (pt 6)

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): The House is grateful for details of next week's business. Of course we understand the difficulty about the week after,

21 Oct 1999 : Column 578

but I assume that we will be dealing with Lords amendments to Government Bills. Can the Leader of the House shed any light on the likely date of prorogation?

I welcome the proposed full day's debate on privilege, for which we have been pressing for some time, and the one on broadcasting, following the Davies report which was published just after the House rose.

The report of the royal commission on long-term care was published in the spring, and the Government have still not found time for a debate on it, despite the reduced pressure on time and the importance of the issue. I am sure that the Leader of the House understands the concern felt both inside and outside the House. I must press her for an undertaking to provide time for such a debate in the very near future.

I welcome the proposed debate on agriculture on Thursday. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be taking part and that it will be in order to raise the issues in the Cabinet Office report proposing VAT on new building, new taxes on tourism and the relaxation of the planning regime, all of which have caused widespread alarm? Will she reflect on what the Government have just done in respect of Agriculture questions--namely, grouping two questions and taking them at 12.30 pm? Would not it have been better to make a proper statement with due notice and the normal courtesies?

It has been usual to have a two-day debate on defence matters when the House returns in the autumn. What has happened to that debate and to the usual defence White Paper, which has not been published since 1996? The Leader of the House will understand the concerns about overstretch, the Territorial Army and the viability of the strategic defence review. I hope that she can confirm that the debate will indeed take place.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that, for the same reason that I am unable to give further details of future business, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any indication of the likely date of prorogation. I am grateful to him for his welcome for the debates on broadcasting and on the privilege report. I accept that he has been pressing for a debate on long-term care, and I can indeed give him an undertaking that we will find an appropriate time for such a debate in the new Session.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would take part in the agriculture debate. It is the Minister who wishes to hold that debate in order to give the House an opportunity to discuss agricultural matters. Whether it will be in order to raise a range of issues alluded to in The Times is another matter entirely--and not, I am happy to say, a matter for me. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the debate will take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman asked also about the grouping of questions. I accept that the House may occasionally prefer a statement, but we are anxious not to take up the time of the House with too many statements. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took the view that it might be more convenient for the House to handle the matter in this way. However, if Opposition Members do not agree, we will bear that in mind for the future.

The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been no defence White Paper since 1996. However, I remind him that we held the strategic defence review. A White Paper

21 Oct 1999 : Column 579

will come before the House and will be debated at the proper time. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that events in Kosovo have necessitated a fresh look at, and some revision of, defence estimates. That is why the paper has been delayed--there is no sinister motive.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Albeit that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I will share an Adjournment debate on Monday 1 November about the reconstruction of Yugoslavia, will the Leader of the House expand upon her reply to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about defence estimates? Although time is to be found for a debate on the White Paper, that may occur a long way into the future and there are urgent matters to consider in relation not only to Yugoslavia but to the continuing war against Iraq. We should also have an opportunity to discuss the reports of the Bishop of Coventry and his ecclesiastical colleagues who have returned from that country where human disaster is rife.

Mrs. Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am afraid that there is a limit to the extent to which I can help him. I have said that the White Paper will be handled in the traditional manner, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be discourteous to the House if the Defence Committee were not given the chance to examine the White Paper and put its views before the House. However, we shall obviously do our best to bring the matter before the House as soon as we can reasonably do so.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I endorse the concerns expressed about the rather unusual way in which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has dealt with the issue of beef exports. It would have been much tidier, and the House would have appreciated it, if we had received notice that the issue was to be the subject of a proper ministerial statement. We could then have dealt with the matter more effectively.

We understand that the Home Secretary will tomorrow publish the Freedom of Information Bill, which has been watered down. This is a controversial matter in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have considerable interest. It was also the subject of two important reports: the first from the Select Committee on Public Administration in July and the second from the other place. This is a parliamentary matter, yet the Government's Bill is to be published on a non-sitting day. That is surely unacceptable. There should be a proper statement and all hon. Members should have the opportunity to learn what is going on. May we at least have a guarantee that the Second Reading of this extremely important Bill will occur very early in the new Session and that, in the meantime, there will be some statement to the House about the Government's precise intentions?

Mrs. Beckett: The handling of Agriculture questions was explained on the Annunciator. However, I accept that hon. Members may have been unhappy with that procedure and, as I have said already to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young),I will take that on board.

21 Oct 1999 : Column 580

As to the Freedom of Information Bill, I say with respect to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that anyone would think that this matter had not been in the public domain and not been discussed and scrutinised thoroughly. After all, we had a special opportunity, which I think we all welcomed, to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Government are taking account of and replying to some of the comments made during that process. Nevertheless, the Bill will put freedom of information on a statutory basis for the first time.

It is rather a pity that so much comment has concentrated on allegations that the Bill has been in some way watered down, not on the greater access that is being provided, particularly on matters of keen public interest. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's wish for an early Second Reading, but I cannot pre-empt a business statement quite so far ahead.

Next Section

Index

Home Page