House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Jun 1995

Column 503

might be in the frame, but he did not go on to give any more specifics, adding that that group might be joined by

"organisations that are involved in developmental studies".--[ Official Report, Standing Committee F , 15 June 1995; c. 13.] Which organisations? Why, when he could be specific about the former group, was he unable to name a single developmental organisation that might be involved? That vagueness causes us concern.

Therefore, will the Minister advise us which developmental organisations he has in mind? He has identified that, so he must have some in mind. Has the Crown Agents had any approaches from or made approaches to United Kingdom development organisations, or foreign development organisations based in other countries, for example, the Japanese National Aid Agency? So far, my searches among the major UK providers of developmental assistance--the non- governmental organisations--have failed to identify any such approaches. I hope that the Minister will fill that in.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I declare a connection? I am one of the grandchildren of a Crown agent from just before the war. Does the hon. Lady know whether the foundation trustees would be barred from being Members of the House? If not, would it not be a good idea if she suggested that, to give confidence and allay fears, she should seriously be considered as one of the people who could become one of the foundation trustees?

Miss Lestor: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman singles me out in that way, but, quite honestly, I have no wish to do that and I am not sure of the circumstances surrounding people in such a position; it is not something that I seek in any way.

We know from discussions that have taken place between the Overseas Development Administration and the Treasury that, in some ministerial circles, a strong feeling exists that the foundation should be made up of what I believe has been called "hard-nosed business men"--in order not to be sexist, I would add women as well, although I am not a hard-nosed business woman and have no wish to be. I have no wish to impugn the integrity of such people, but I must call into question their commitment to development--and it is the developmental side that I am concerned about and that should be at the heart of the foundation. That is why we have argued and continue to argue for a balance to be established, and that half the initial subscribers to the foundation should have a background in development issues. In the circumstances, I cannot see how the Minister can continue to maintain what seems to be his distant approach to the process of establishing the foundation, especially as he has agreed that the Government will retain an active interest in the running of the foundation for the traditional period. If the Crown Agents is to maintain--and enhance --its reputation after privatisation, it must have at the heart of its structure a management that reflects the developmental purpose of the organisation which we would hold it has. I hope therefore that the Minister, if he wishes to have our support, will give us an assurance that that will be the case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I apologise to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss

Column 504

Lestor) if I appeared not to be paying full attention at one stage to what she was saying. It was not intentional and I thank her for her kind comments.

Throughout the Bill's passage, we have been trying to reassure all hon. Members of what we are about: ensuring that the Crown Agents can take its work forward into the 21st century as a developmental agency, but within the private rather than the public sector. We have achieved that because, if one considers the new clause tabled by the Opposition, it summarises many of the Government's plans for the Crown Agents. I congratulate the hon. Lady on drafting the new clause in that way. It could have been drafted only by someone who had read the various speeches that Ministers have made here, in another place and in Committee, and it summarises the understanding and commitments that we have given to both the House and another place.

Of course we understand the concern behind the new clause: to know as much as possible about our proposals. The Government have already gone the extra mile to meet that concern. We have placed in the Library a copy of the draft memorandum and articles of association for the foundation that will own Crown Agents. We have said that the information memorandum for prospective members will be published well before transfer, and that we will present a further report to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We have given the House as much information as is consistent with commercial confidentiality and the complex process of transferring a business into the private sector. It is inappropriate to attach to legislation the extra information that the Government have made available. The Bill follows a precedent set in the House and followed on every previous occasion. It is an enabling measure, designed to expedite measures that the Government have described many times in great detail. It is unnecessary to specify the intended eventual owner in this way.

There will not be any extra benefit from the new clause. It will not reveal more about the nature of the foundation than is already known. It is not designed to change Government policy--we are committed to the foundation route. We have said from the first that the owner of the Crown Agents in the private sector will be an independent foundation whose memorandum and articles will commit it to a social and developmental purpose. We have said that it will be a company limited by guarantee that will not distribute dividends to its members, but use its profits solely in pursuit of its objectives.

We have also given some indication of the balance of membership that we envisage for the foundation. Of course it is appropriate that its membership should reflect the international character of the Crown Agents' activities and social purpose, and that it should provide an enduring basis on which to expand the business. Membership will consist of organisations active in international development which endorse the Crown Agents' purpose and principles. Those will include charities, private sector companies, professional and trade organisations, other aid organisations and enduring institutions. There has been little time since Committee to enable us to be more definite about prospective membership of the foundation because of the progress that we have made with legislation, but I can give the names of some of the organisations that have expressed their interest in membership since Committee--these are of course in

Column 505

addition to those that I gave on Second Reading. They include financial institutions such as Barclays bank, companies from industry such as Cable and Wireless, professional bodies such as the British Standards Institution, and registered charities such Christian Aid, the Intermediate Technology Development Group and the development education organisation, Worldaware. We are therefore seeking to strike a balance between those with business experience, those who have experience in developmental work, and those who have experience in aid and development more generally.

I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured that we most certainly do not see the foundation as being made up simply of, as she put it, hard-nosed business men and women; we see it as reflecting the broad interests of Crown Agents. On Second Reading I explained in some detail--the House will recall that we had a full day's debate on Second Reading--how the foundation and its membership will come about.

I think that the last part of the new clause is intended to subject transfer to an affirmative resolution procedure. Again, we are on well- trodden ground. The Government have made available a wealth of information about the owner of the Crown Agents. Ownership of the business will be passed to the foundation, whose draft memorandum and articles of association are available to hon. Members--copies are in the Library. The Government's plans are well known and there is no reason to break with precedent in this case and attach further unnecessary conditions to the transfer.

I hope that the hon. Lady, having heard further information about the membership of the foundation, and that organisations such as Christian Aid are prepared to be identified with it in due course, will feel that it is not necessary to press the new clause.

Miss Lestor: The Minister has been a little more forthcoming in response to questions that I have raised. As he said and as I reiterated, we are anxious that this has a development angle as well as a business angle. He has gone a little way to meet my requirements. He is asking us to take a lot on trust but, as I am still, despite my many years in the House, a trusting individual, I shall just say to the Minister that we will be watching the formation of the foundation carefully. I hope that what he has said is reflected in the make-up of the foundation and in the angle that we have proposed. For those reasons, I am happy not to press the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn .

Order for Third reading read

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time --[Mr. Baldry.]

4.59 pm

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): It is with great pleasure that I welcome the final stage of this important Bill. I have the privilege and pleasure to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the headquarters of Crown Agents is located. Therefore, I have been taking a detailed and careful interest in the Bill's progress. I do that because I regard Crown Agents as the flagship for the United Kingdom. When we talk about Great Britain, we believe that that is symbolised in

Column 506

the magnificent work of Crown Agents. It is the leading aid procurement agency in the world. It has handled an enormous amount of important work for the Overseas Development Administration and the Japanese Government as well as for many other customers throughout the world--indeed, in 150 countries.

This enabling Bill is important because we hope to see Crown Agents being given greater commercial freedom to be able to move into the 21st century. It is essential that Crown Agents should be unfettered and should be set free from the remaining Government restraints. I hope that as we move into the transition phase, all the comments and recommendations that I made on Second Reading and in Committee will be discussed carefully and heeded. In the end we all want Crown Agents to continue the magnificent work of which we are so proud. 5.1 pm

Mr. Baldry: The Crown Agents Bill has now had a thorough examination at each of its stages in this House and in another place. We have debated a number of key issues including the corporate structure of the proposed foundation and the operating company, aspects of the financial arrangements of the new Crown Agents and the interests of staff and pensioners.

I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the proceedings on the Bill for the constructive way in which they have approached it. It took a little time to convince the Opposition that we were genuine in our intentions. As the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, there is a measure of trust on this. I hope that we have demonstrated, through the memorandum and articles of association and the other work that we have done, that we want to see Crown Agents move into the 21st century, retaining its existing ethos but within the private rather than the public sector.

The Bill allows Crown Agents to take a further important step forward in its long and distinguished history. It contains the necessary enabling provisions to provide a stable and secure future for the business fully in the private sector well into the 21st century.

We have put the Government's plans for Crown Agents on record in the House and in the draft memorandum and articles of association. We intend that those plans will preserve what is best in Crown Agents tradition in a form suited to our modern and increasingly competitive world. We will continue to make available information to hon. Members if it is not commercially sensitive and once we are certain that it is the right approach. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will present a further paper to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs before transfer is due to take place. I have said that I will be glad to consider any suggestions that hon. Members may have to improve the memorandum and articles of association with the proviso that they are not, ultimately, the property of the Government but of the foundation. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing Crown Agents every success. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who has the Crown Agents headquarters in her constituency. She has been a tireless champion of Crown Agents throughout proceedings on the Bill. Crown Agents should be grateful that it has such a doughty Member of Parliament. I am sure that every hon. Member wishes Crown Agents every success as it moves on to its next stage.

Column 507

5.3 pm

Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles): We could continue this debate until 10 o'clock, but in view of the assurances that the Minister has given and the fact that some important matters may be raised in a moment, I join the Minister in wishing Crown Agents good fortune for the future. We will be looking at the details of this with great interest and I hope that things go well and smoothly.

Column 508

Points of Order

5.4 pm

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister has announced his resignation as leader of the Conservative party and has announced that he will be a candidate in any forthcoming election. Have you had any notification of that statement? Have you had any notification that the Prime Minister will come to the House and make a statement? Have you any indication as to whether the most appropriate thing to do in all these circumstances would be to call a general election?

Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I can deal with that now. I have had no such indication.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Mackinlay: It is on the same subject, but it is a different point. If the news that has been imparted to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is true, it has raised a constitutional issue which requires that before the House adjourns, there should be a statement from the Government. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is the Prime Minister, not just the leader of the Conservative party. We need to know who is running the country, if indeed anybody is doing so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon has not announced his resignation as Prime Minister. They are two separate offices. Whatever the ins and outs of this, it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a different point of order. Will you take this opportunity to condemn the growing practice of making important statements about key constitutional issues, regardless of the niceties as to whether someone is the Prime Minister or the leader of a party, to press conferences rather than to the House of Commons?

Madam Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that this matter does not relate precisely to the House of Commons.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the information that we have just heard unprecedented in modern political times? I have searched my memory, to the extent that I can, and I do not believe that such an event has happened before this century. Does not that raise some fundamental issues which it would be right for the House to have an opportunity to consider? Is there some mechanism available by which these issues can be discussed in that part of the day's business which is still available, in view of the speedy resolution of the matter with which we have just been concerned?

Column 509

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated clearly that this is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Banks: It is a different point in that you have the power to suspend the House for a period of time during which discussions could take place. These are grave matters and it is ludicrous that the House has no opportunity to discuss them. I understand your difficulties, but a short suspension at this time would be helpful for us all.

Madam Deputy Speaker: My overriding duty in the Chair is to ensure that the business before the House on this day is transacted.

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all appreciate the difficulties that face you. I hope that you will also appreciate the difficulties facing hon. Members and Ministers who might want to participate in debates today. Given the news that we have just heard, there is a serious question about the authority that Ministers have to come to the Dispatch Box and speak on behalf of the Government and the Prime Minister. There is a complete sense of disintegration within the Government, not just from the Prime Minister but from other Ministers. All of us who participate in debates, whether from the Opposition or the Government Benches, have noticed that in recent weeks. During the remaining proceedings in the House today, we need to be sure that Ministers who speak do so with the authority of the Prime Minister and that clearly is not the case.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe that the hon. Lady was not in the Chamber when I made my earlier announcement about the fact that the position of Prime Minister has not been renounced and so for Ministers it all goes on.

Mr. Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire, North): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes. When the leadership of a country is in such disarray, as it obviously is today, surely it is a matter for the House. You are entirely right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that being leader of a party is different from being the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, it is of enormous importance to the public and to hon. Members that other countries that may be looking on will see that the Government appear to be disintegrating from the top. Surely that matter should be the subject of an urgent debate. Perhaps there should be an Adjournment of the House to consider the matters and--subsequently--a debate on these enormously important developments.

Mrs. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would greatly assist hon. Members if the Leader of the House were to make a statement to explain the situation. I understand that the Leader of the House is in the building and it would be helpful to

Column 510

everyone if he were to make a statement. If he cannot be present at this precise moment, perhaps the only option open to the House is a brief suspension of the sitting so that hon. Members may ascertain all the circumstances and so that Conservative Members, who have been coming in and out of the Chamber for the past few minutes trying to find out what is happening, may have their position clarified as well.

Such a degree of uncertainty is obviously very unsatisfactory, not least because there have been many opportunities during the afternoon for the Prime Minister to make the statement inside this House that he has just made outside it. When the Prime Minister and other Ministers do not have the courage to say in the House what they are prepared to say outside it, the role of the House is placed in doubt. Perhaps other people can throw light on the matter. The Leader of the House--at least--should make a statement and the sitting should be suspended until that statement is made.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I see no reason to suspend the sitting. I have no doubt that those sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard the points made and--presumably--will be able to work through the usual channels. I have nothing further to add. I cannot allow this to develop into a general debate.

Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I need to know that it is a different point of order.

Mr. Austin-Walker: It is a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly you were not aware of the situation about which hon. Members have spoken. I wish to know whether Madam Speaker was informed and, indeed, whether Her Majesty the Queen was informed about the situation because it raises a poignant constitutional point. Can Madam Speaker come to the House to say whether she was made aware of the situation?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for Madam Speaker. It is not for me to tell her what she should or should not do.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House obviously understands your difficulty. It is a very sudden announcement. Madam Speaker ought to come to the House and use her authority to explain what is required under such circumstances. In that case, would you, Madam Deputy Speaker, consider a brief suspension of the sitting so that Madam Speaker may come to the House, which is her right and her duty as I see it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely a matter for Madam Speaker whether she returns to the Chair. It is not for me to send for her.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept and understand the point that you are making. We are in an extremely unusual and difficult position. In view of the concern in the House and throughout the nation, could a message be sent immediately to Madam Speaker to ask whether she could come to the Chamber so that the matter may be clarified?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Clearly, if the matter is of concern to hon. Members, the usual channels should be

Column 511

invoked. I see representatives of the usual channels present. If it is their wish to use such means, they should get on with it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have made a helpful and constructive suggestion. As the hon. Member responsible for my party's participation in the usual channels, we and the official Opposition would certainly like the opportunity to have discussions through the usual channels. Would not the best way to effect that immediately be to suspend the sitting for a short period to enable discussions to take place?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not regard that as necessary. Discussions can take place between the usual channels while the House is sitting.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With regard to the business of the House, the Crown Agents Bill [Lords] has been discussed and the Adjournment debate was about to start. Am I correct? In those circumstances, the House is likely to rise early and there may not be later opportunities to raise urgent matters on subsequent points of order. Would not it therefore be advisable to suspend the sitting?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman disappoints me. I have been amazed at the ingenuity of hon. Members in keeping business going when they choose to do so.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The resignation of a Prime Minister, a leader of a party in power, is obviously enormously important. The Prime Minister has recently answered questions in the House and while points of order have been raised with you, Ministers, obviously quite perplexed by what has happened, have been running in and out of the Chamber. Has not great discourtesy been shown to the House? Announcements have--it appears--been made regardless of the House. Is it proper for a Prime Minister to answer questions at Prime Minister's Question Time and not to mention such things? Is it correct procedure for a Prime Minister to resign as leader of his party and, therefore, place his position as Prime Minister in some jeopardy, without--it appears--properly consulting Ministers who are designated as Ministers by this House--

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough. I have already made it clear that there is a constitutional distinction to be drawn between the leader of a party and the Prime Minister. I have-- Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it very clear that this is not a matter for the Chair or one on which I can intervene. I have made a practical suggestion that the usual channels should get together and make any decisions that they wish. In the meantime, I have a duty to ensure that the business of this House continues.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The argument has been put by several Opposition Members that the Prime Minister has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and that he should have made that announcement to the House of Commons.

Column 512

With respect to those who have put that argument, they fail to make a distinction which lies at the very heart of our system of Government. Any Minister must learn very early in his career as a Minister the difference between party business, where he is not entitled-- [Interruption.] This applies to any Minister at any level in the Government. Any Minister must learn the difference between party business, in which he is not entitled to the support of the civil service machine and on which he is accountable to a party audience, not to a House of Commons or Government audience. That is a fundamental distinction at the heart of any Minister's discharge of his responsibilities.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has observed that central distinction. He has made the announcement outside this House about his status as the leader of the Conservative party because he is not accountable to this House for it. It does not affect his status as the Queen's First Minister, in which capacity he continues to answer as Prime Minister to this House and in which capacity he leads a Government in which all those sitting on the Treasury Bench continue to serve as members of the Queen's Government.-- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I expect to have courtesy and consideration in the House. I will certainly hear no more points of order if there are ructions and rumpuses.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State for National Heritage has raised an important point. Of course we all appreciate the difference between being leader of the Conservative party and being Prime Minister. The fact is, however, that although the Prime Minister may have resigned, for the time being or permanently, as leader of the Conservative party, he is still Prime Minister of this country and his first obligation ought to be to come to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is responsible to the House of Commons; he has spoken in the House today.

It is clearly the case that Conservative Members, including members of the 1922 Committee, have come to the Chamber since the matter was raised because they do not know what is happening. This situation is not good for Parliament and not good for the country. Why cannot the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House come to the House? We have time available. It would be foolish to move on to the Adjournment before we get a clear statement to the House.

What concerns hon. Members is the fact that the Prime Minister is treating this House with contempt. The position of the Prime Minister is not simply an internal matter for a few members of the Conservative party; it matters to this country as a whole. There are implications for this country as a whole and there are implications for any international negotiations in which the Prime Minister or other Ministers are involved over the next few weeks. It simply is not good enough for members of the Conservative party to think that all this can be done behind closed doors without Parliament being informed and without any repercussions for the country as a whole. This House demands and this House needs a clear statement. Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made the position quite clear from the point of view of the

Column 513

Chair. I can deal only with matters that affect the Chair. The point of view that has been expressed has been clearly expressed; it has now been repeated on a number of occasions. I have made the only suggestion that I can make, namely, that the usual channels get together and see whether they can make some arrangements. It is not a matter for me and I cannot allow what would turn into virtually a full-scale debate on this.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that in none of the changes of the Labour leadership and in no change of the Tory leadership over the past 20 years during which I have been in the House, has there been a debate? Should not the Labour party realise that the big difference is not between being leader of the Tory party and being Prime Minister, but between being leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister? There has been a gap of 17 years and, judging by Labour's behaviour today, there is likely to be a gap of another 17 years.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Banks: I ask whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of what is going on here and in view of the possibility that good order in the House is in jeopardy, would be prepared to suspend the sitting. Surely you have the power to do so. That would give everyone the opportunity to have discussions outside rather than to have these exchanges across the Floor.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have told the House already--perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time--that I do not see fit to adjourn the House. I have a duty to the agenda before us to ensure that it is completed.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may be helpful for me, as one of the Conservative Members who has come down into the Chamber, to explain to the shadow Leader of the House that I was in no doubt about what had happened. I came into the Chamber because I saw that something untoward was happening here. It seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that what you have ruled is entirely appropriate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a rather bizarre contribution, in the form of a point of order, from the Secretary of State for National Heritage in which he appeared to confuse the role of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister, acting as though this was a one-party state where the office of Prime Minister was within the gift of the Conservative party. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that you have been shown grave discourtesy in terms of the way in which the Government have behaved this afternoon? This House and, more importantly, the public on every street in this country have been shown discourtesy. The Conservative party plays fast and loose with these important issues. Should not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, insist that the Prime Minister now comes to the House to make a statement about his resignation and about what plans there are either for his replacement or, more hopefully, for an imminent general election?

Column 514

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State for National Heritage made at rather greater length the point I made earlier--that it is important constitutionally to draw a distinction between the leadership of a party and the office of Prime Minister.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the constitution that the leader of the party with the majority in the House of Commons is Prime Minister, appointed by the Queen on the advice of Privy Councillors, usually the outgoing Prime Minister? Is it not the case that when a party's leader has been the Prime Minister, on no occasion since the second world war has that party's leadership been changed without notice having been given to Her Majesty?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to know what advice has been tendered to Her Majesty.

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As one of the hon. Members who listened to the Prime Minister making his statement at 5 o'clock tonight, live on Sky television, I distinctly heard the Prime Minister make the point that he was resigning as the leader of the Conservative party, but that he would be a candidate in the forthcoming election for the leadership of the Conservative party. He also added that if he lost, he would immediately resign as Prime Minister. Given that he made it clear that he was only a challenger and that he might lose, and given the possibility of a new Prime Minister, is it not important that the House should be suspended to allow the Leader of the House to come here to clarify the matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not have the advantage of hearing the statement. Even so, it seems to reiterate the point that has already been made. The Prime Minister remains as Prime Minister of this country.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition sometimes consider that there is an awful lot of humbug about the constitutional relationship between the Government and the monarch. The Tory party is selective in that, when it suits it, it ignores that relationship. There are precedents. Lord Callaghan, Lord Wilson and others always said that they had advised the Queen of the fact that they intended to trigger an election in their political parties. Those are the ground rules by which they played. We have a right to know from the Prime Minister whether he has informed the head of state that there will be an election in the principal party. After all, being leader of that party gives the mandate to be Prime Minister. We need to know whether Buckingham palace has been informed and what its response has been. There are constitutional precedents for this. When Lord Wilson announced that he was stepping down as Prime Minister--

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point at some length. I have already told the House that I do not know what has passed between the Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen. I cannot know and it is certainly not my responsibility in the Chair. This matter has now been sufficiently aired. I propose to take no more points of order on it and I will move on.

Several Hon. Members: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Column 515

Notice being taken that strangers were present, Madam Deputy Speaker--, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:--

The House proceeded to a Division :--

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) ( seated and covered ): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that four Opposition Members are declining to come out of the Lobby and are delaying the vote.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If that be the case, I have my remedies to hand.

The House having divided: Ayes 10, Noes 216.

Division No. 172] [5.28 pm

AYES

Next Section

Home Page