| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Dec 2002 : Column 1008—continued
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): DMPs?
Mr. Forth: Defence Minister's porkies. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence is not falling into the bad habits of the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House please take the Secretary of State for Defence to one side and quietly give him a crash course in straightforwardness with the House?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his crash course in politeness and good cheer. Plainly, we can put that down as another success for Labour education policy.[Interruption.] In this case, we may have to try harder.
I fully understand the interests of the House in fisheries policy. Indeed, at this very moment an important meeting is proceeding in Brussels, at which the British case is being presented by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). We wanted to make sure that there was an early opportunity for him to report back to the House and for the House to discuss it. Although I cannot give the precise hours of allocation, I anticipate that the House will want to spend longer on fisheries than on the General Synod measure.
No member of the Government is more punctilious in keeping the House informed than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I suspect that if I were to go through those who had made statements over the past 12 months, I would find that my right hon. Friend
had given among the most, if not the most, statements to the House. Quite properly, he came to the House yesterday, gave a full statement and took questions. [Interruption.] Sometimes, the Opposition's questions do not lend themselves to a reply that is comprehensible to the world outside here. Within those limitations, my right hon. Friend has been to the House as often as anybody else and has made full statements. I should have thought that the House might give him credit for that.As far as I can tell from the past four weeks, the number of oral statements is comparable with any previous period in the history of the House and is certainly well ahead of the number when the Tories were in power.
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): Will the Leader of the House give us some advice about the progress being made on reform of the House of Lords? The report was issued last week. Many of us eagerly anticipate a debate on its contents and, in due course, a vote on the issues and options.
What are the Government's intentions on the proposed draft Mental Health Bill, which appears to have been in and out like a fiddler's elbow? Again, the House and people outside are keen to find out what is happening.
Will the Leader of the House assure Members that before military forces are committed to any extended military action in Iraq we will have an opportunity to debate and vote on the commitment of forces?
Mr. Cook: Of course I anticipate the enthusiasm of the House to have a further debate on House of Lords reform, and I look forward to a further debate with the keenest anticipation. I anticipate that the debate will probably be held in the week after the two weeks for which I have announced the business, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to delay the matter. We set up the Joint Committee; we promised a free vote on its proposals, and we want to ensure that they proceed.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that publication of the draft Mental Health Bill has produced many responses. The two Departments concerned are, quite rightly and properly, fully considering the responses and will return to the House once they have had an opportunity to reflect on amendments to be made in the light of that consultation exercise.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the debate in the House only three weeks ago that the Government have no difficulty whatsoever with the idea of considering a substantive motion in the House and, indeed, want to keep the House fully informed and fully behind any action that we take. That is why he said that he would support the House considering a substantive motion at the appropriate time. What the appropriate time may be will have to be judged in the light of circumstances, but, of course, he indicated that, if possible, we would want to ensure that the House had a full opportunity to express a view before action was taken and, if not possible, immediately after action was taken.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): It is splendid news that we will debate House of Lords reform next month, but will my right hon. Friend tell me a bit more about the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which has not been doing much appointing recently? In fact, no people's peers have been appointed this year. I wonder whether the commission meets and how much it costs the taxpayer to keep it in existence.
Mr. Cook: In fairness, I must invite my hon. Friend to reflect on some of his comments when the Appointments Commission has met and made appointments. He has expressed such distaste and disappointment that I really do not think that he should complain that it has not tried to disappoint him again.
Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): Pursuing the spirit of Christmas good will announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), may I congratulate the Leader of the House on introducing amendments this week to the data protection legislation to enable Members of Parliament to continue to go about their business? Some people do not like that, but most people think that it is basically a good idea. Does he accept that the Opposition aided and abetted him in that triumph? Will he consider writing a letter to Members of Parliament explaining exactly what the amendments will mean for us?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments, and I am very happy to express the view that, of course, that was a result of an approach that embraced all parties in the House and in which he has taken a very close personal interest. I am pleased to confirm that the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 came into force this week and that from now on it will not be legal for any public body to cite the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason why it cannot respond to a request from a Member of Parliament. That was the right decision to take because, when our constituents come to see us, they expect us to take action; they do not expect us to say that we cannot take action because of the Data Protection Act.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): May I take my right hon. Friend back to fishing? He knows only too well how important fishing is to the communities of Whitby and Scarborough. Is some facility available to hon. Members, especially those who represent fishing communities, to allow DEFRA to make a written statement following the conclusion of the current important discussions being held in Brussels, so that we can provide the very best service to our constituents, who are feeling hard pressed and very concerned about their futures, and so that we can do the work that we were elected to do?
Mr. Cook: Before I respond to my hon. Friend's question, may I apologise for not responding to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) that I should write to hon. Members? I shall reflect on that, and it may indeed be helpful for hon. Members to have that explanation in writing.
I understand the importance to my hon. Friend and his constituents not only of the fisheries negotiations but of an authoritative statement before the House resumes. I shall pass on his point to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who may wish to consider writing to him and the other hon. Members most closely involved, but that is ultimately a decision for him.
In fairness, I would say that the Government made provision for fisheries debates before the current negotiations began, and we have taken care to do so again as soon as the House resumes. I know that it is a difficult time for those communities and that my hon. Friend will want a clear statement as soon as possible, but within the constraints of our sitting weeks we have provided good opportunity for him and his colleagues to discuss the matter with the Minister.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Further to that last question, is the Leader of the House aware that if there is a failure to reach an agreement on fisheries, responsibility falls immediately to the Commission? The current Commission proposals mean the total destruction of the UK fishing industry. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of that, but that is the reality, the truth and the fact. Will he respond more positively to the House and to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn)? DEFRA should provide all Members with a statement on what is agreed and what the Government are prepared to do to safeguard the United Kingdom fishing industry, which is about to be destroyed?
Mr. Cook: In fairness, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have repeatedly made statements on their position. We are fully aware of the severe demands that the proposals will make on fishing communities in Britain. The Minister of State is engaged in very tough negotiations to find the best possible way forward that balances the needs of fishing communities with the unavoidable fact that we need to take action to preserve future cod stocks. Although it is absolutely right that we should seek to find ways in which we can maintain sustainable fishing communities, that will not be possible unless we also find ways of maintaining sustainable fishing stocks.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |