Heath quizzes Harman on the Business of the House

• . . David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat): ' . . May we have a debate on the case of Gary McKinnon, the Asperger's syndrome sufferer who is being cynically handed over to the United States authorities, possibly to serve 60 years in an American jail?'

Dealing first with the urgent question we have just discussed, we heard a deplorably weak performance from the shadow Home Secretary, and it was not mentioned at all by Alan Duncan. As the question clearly raises potential issues of privilege, may I ask the right hon. and learned Lady to consider those issues and report to the House? Will she also inquire of her Cabinet colleague, the Attorney-General, as to the prosecution policy that was adopted previously on the matter? Perhaps the Solicitor-General could make a statement to the House.

A useful innovation recently was for notice to be given to the House when it was known that a statement was to be made by a Minister. Last week, two White Papers were published and oral statements were made to the House. One of the White Papers was about banking, where I accept that there may have been market-sensitive material, but the one on Monday was about international development and I cannot quite accept that it was not known last Thursday that a White Paper was to be published on Monday. Will the Leader of the House look at the matter again and give Members of the House proper notice when a statement is to be made, particularly on the publication of a White Paper? Will she also make good the promise of the Secretary of State for International Development that we will soon have a debate on international development issues?

May we have a debate on the case of Gary McKinnon, the Asperger's syndrome sufferer who is being cynically handed over to the United States authorities, possibly to serve 60 years in an American jail? The Home Secretary, somewhat disingenuously, says he cannot instruct prosecution. That is absolutely right, but what he can do is stop the extradition and allow the circumstances in which that unfortunate gentleman could be tried in this country. Many of us felt that the one-sided extradition treaty was a disgrace to Britain. This use of that disgraceful treaty is a further disgrace and a shame, and I hope we will have the opportunity to debate it.

I support the view already expressed about Equitable Life. The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right to make the distinction between an ex gratia payment and compensation, but she ignores the findings of the ombudsman. The early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend Dr. Cable, which has attracted 307 signatures, shows the strength of feeling across the House. If we can get 16 more signatures, there will be an absolute majority of Members who want something to be done. May we have a proper debate and an oral statement on the issue?

The House rises for the summer recess on 22 July. Will the Leader of the House ring round all the Government offices to make sure that we do not have what we have every year, which is a profusion-a plethora-of written statements in the last days before the House rises, so that people cannot examine the statements and ask questions in the House? Last year, we had 63 written statements in the last two days. The worst offender, incidentally, was the Prime Minister, with no fewer than 10 written statements on the last day. That is unacceptable. The Leader of the House has time at least to phase the statements over the next week. Will she do so? (HC Deb, 9 July 2009, c1142)

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour): The hon. Gentleman made further points about Equitable Life. I think 100 % of Members want justice for Equitable Life policyholders who have lost out. We all agree with that, and a process is under way to make sure that ex gratia payments are made.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the custom and practice whereby loads of written ministerial statements are put out in the final days. That is something that I am already raising with ministerial colleagues, to encourage them not to leave things until the last moment. If every Department does that, the difficulty is that there is an unmanageable amount of statements for colleagues to respond to. I shall remind all colleagues that the matter has already been raised by the House and that this time we have to try to break the habit of a lifetime-of tipping them all out before the summer recess. I will do my best, and so will my deputy and the Chief Whip-[Hon. Members: "Ah."] So it is sure to be all right.

Mr. Heath mentioned the case of Gary McKinnon. As I understand it, the matter is not for the Home Secretary's decision; it was for decision by the courts, which have decided that this man should be extradited. It is not at the discretion of the Home Secretary, but a decision by the courts.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that when a White Paper is to be produced there should be an indication to the House-perhaps the previous week-even if the particular day was not specified, so that Members at least know that something is coming up. In order not to give a date that then turns out to be wrong-because something else happens that moves the date a day or two, and everybody says, "Aha, something's gone wrong"-we have been deterred from announcing oral statements in advance, but actually the outcome is perverse. We are planning something and we know about it within a day or so, but we do not inform the House. When we come back, I think that perhaps for an experimental period, we will try to give a business statement indicating when oral statements about major documents are likely to be coming up. That is a good suggestion.

On the question about the revelations in The Guardian, the hon. Gentleman will have heard the responses given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism to the urgent question. A number of Members have already raised with me whether there is a question of privilege. It certainly does raise issues of grave concern. We are elected to represent our constituents and, to do our duty in that respect, to hold the Executive to account. We must not be impeded in that work by interference through the interception of our communications. That would constitute contempt of Parliament and a breach of parliamentary privilege, and it is something I shall have to consider.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament