---

Mr. Forth: I am sure that the House is especially grateful for the information that the part-time Leader of

23 Oct 2003 : Column 790

the House has given us. I noticed that colleagues were assiduously making notes as he spoke, which shows the level of interest in that information.

Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on the mysterious shrinking September sittings? It is within my memory that, when the Government first announced the very welcome development that we were to sit in September, three weeks was mentioned. That may be in your memory, too, Mr. Speaker. Then the time was rather mysteriously reduced to only two weeks; because, I suspect, the Government suddenly realised that they might be held to account rather too much while the House was back. If I heard the part-time Leader of the House correctly, he has now shortened that period yet again. We are to come back on Tuesday 7 September, not on Monday 6 September; then, presumably—if the right hon. Gentleman will confirm this—we shall sit only for three days in that week and for only four days in the following week. So the September sitting, during which the House was going to have an opportunity vigorously to hold the Government to account, has shrunk, by my calculation, to seven sitting days. Is that accidental or deliberate? What are the Government afraid of? Why does not the Leader want us back for lots of time in September to do our business, and why is he denying us that opportunity? We need to know.

Now I should like to ask the part-time Leader whether he can allow the Deputy Prime Minister to lead a debate which I suggest might be entitled, "How to own up gracefully to ministerial inaccuracies". I say that because yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked the Deputy Prime Minister:

"Why is it . . . that under his Labour Government the construction of social housing in English rural authorities has halved?"

That was a perfectly reasonable question. The Deputy Prime Minister replied:

"I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has said that before, but it is just not true."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 630.]

That seems to be an absolutely factual statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend immediately wrote to him:

"I am afraid that your answer to my question was completely contrary to—"

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): What has this got to do with next week?

Mr. Forth: I'll tell you what, Mr. Speaker: I am in a generous mood, so I will do the right hon. Gentleman a favour and get him into Hansard. If he had been listening to what I said, he would have heard that I have asked for a debate, and the debate was to be entitled, "How to own up gracefully to ministerial inaccuracies." If I had been in error, Mr. Speaker would have been down on me like a ton of bricks, but so far he has allowed me to continue, so I shall press my luck just a little bit further.

23 Oct 2003 : Column 791

In his letter, my right hon. Friend said to the Deputy Prime Minister:

"I am afraid that your answer to my question was completely contrary to answers given by your Department."

That indeed was the case, but in fairness to the Deputy Prime Minister, he wrote back immediately to my right hon. Friend, saying:

"I can confirm that the figures"

that were given by the Minister of State

"are correct. I apologise for the fact that on the floor of the House"—

and so on.

Now, will we have that debate? Will the Deputy Prime Minister be able to give us a shining example of how properly to apologise to the House for inaccuracies, and will he then pass the report of that debate to No. 10, so that the Prime Minister can learn for once how one should apologise to the House for inaccuracies, and so that I do not have to raise it in "Prime Minister's porkies" every week? That, I think, would be a very helpful development indeed.

Finally, may I ask, please, when we shall have a debate—I know that this has just been raised at Question Time, but I think we should have such a debate—on genetically modified crops? We know the position that the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) takes on this; it is a very knowledgeable and honourable position. We are constantly intrigued by the role played by Lord Sainsbury, an Under-Secretary of State responsible for science at the Department of Trade and Industry. And now—this is fairly unusual—we have an insight into the Prime Minister's views on this very important subject. He told us yesterday in the House:

"I know that there is a huge campaign against GM"—

for once he is plumbed in and well informed. He is aware of it. But then he says,

"but to be frank, the Government have no interest in the matter one way or the other"—

this is the Prime Minister—

"other than to . . . do the right thing. However"—

there has to be a however, and this is the however, and this is why we need a debate to tease this out—

"the biotechnology industry is a vital part of this country's industry. Many people believe that the science of genetics will be the most important science of the first half of the 21st century, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that other countries are piling investment into this area."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 642.]

The Prime Minister would appear to have prejudged the issue, would he not? It is therefore very important that we have a debate in the House as early possible, so that the Government can tell us what they are thinking and, as important, so that the House can tell the Government what Members of Parliament are thinking. We must not, surely, have this issue kicked into the long grass.

Mr. Hain: I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is in such fine and robust form, because I have been getting a bit worried about him; he has been unusually invisible over the past week. One exception

23 Oct 2003 : Column 792

was when I saw him sitting on the second row—interesting—when his leader was on the front row. He was almost right behind him. Surely the shadow Leader of the House should show some solidarity and loyalty to his leader by sitting alongside him, but there he was. I do not know whether he is stepping into the newly vacated role as the quiet man of British politics.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was one of the dozens—scores—of his hon. and right hon. colleagues who were plotting over the past few days, one of whom said:

"While it is true we need 25 names to get a vote of confidence, we need only three names to get him sectioned".

I do not know whether that was the right hon. Gentleman, but to come his points on September, I do not know whether he would really like the September sittings to be switched to coincide with the Tory party conference week, because I am sure that he would far rather be here than at the Tory party conference. He overlooks the fact that we did a lot of very important business in September. I think that I am right in saying that he was critical of sitting in September.

Mr. Forth indicated dissent.

Mr. Hain: Oh, fine. I withdraw that. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that we did a lot of very good work in September, and I am sure that we will do a lot of very good work in the days that we have allocated in the coming September.

The right hon. Gentleman asked such a long, contorted question about the Deputy Prime Minister that I do not think that anyone understood what on earth he was on about, but if he was asking for a debate on social housing, he can apply for one in the normal way or encourage some of his Back Benchers to do so.

On the substantive issue that the right hon. Gentleman quite properly raised on GM crops, it is important that there be an open debate on GM crops. The scientific evidence has now come in; the Government will consider it very thoroughly; and I would expect the House to debate GM crops in due course, so I am very happy to accede to his request. The timing will depend on when the Government have considered all the evidence and we will then come to that matter.

Finally, I was very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not raise the great, important issue of public finances, because I see that the Tory party treasurer is planning to stop his £5 million funding of the Tory party unless there is a change of leader. [Hon. Members: "What has that got to do with next week?"] Well, I am sure that he will want to know. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Speakers should not hear these things.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Just following up that ticklish little bit at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, I wonder whether we ought not to have an urgent debate on the state funding of political parties. The Leader of the House will recognise that the Electoral Commission is doing a very careful job in analysing exactly what is happening at the moment and

23 Oct 2003 : Column 793

what could happen in future, but I understand that that report may not be available to us until quite late next year. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could identify an opportunity, perhaps immediately after the Queen's Speech, to hold a debate on that issue. Or perhaps, indeed, we need a paving Bill; otherwise any changes, reforms and improvements in the state funding of political parties could not take place before the next general election.

I am sure that the Leader of the House will be aware that all parties are signed up to the principle of state funding. Indeed, the Conservative party has accepted about £20 million from the taxpayer since the 1997 loss of office. I wonder therefore whether he could particularly consider the concerns that have been expressed on all sides about the way in which parties—such as the Conservative party, which is now very seriously in debt—are becoming corrupted by the way in which influence is imposed on them by millionaires' cheques. Perhaps he will have seen the interview this morning with Mr. Stuart Wheeler, who said that it is the duty of Conservative MPs to act urgently and that there is an overwhelming case for changing the leader of the Conservative party.

---