| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I attempted to table an oral question to the Secretary of State for Defence, asking him on what date he expected to publish the strategic defence review. I was advised by the Clerk that there was a convention that, as my question gave no particular guide to my supplementary, I could not table it as an oral question. When I repeated my experience to very senior colleagues, I was told that they were unaware of any such convention. I should be grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I could be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and more senior Members who are not aware of some of our guidelines, Standing Orders and procedures. I refer him to page 301 of the latest issue of "Erskine May"--it must be the latest edition, which was published at the end of last month. Paragraph 12 makes it clear that oral questions to departmental Ministers should
- "indicate, within reasonably broad limits, a particular subject matter."
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the crisis in the agricultural industry, which has been greatly exacerbated by the Government's announcement about meat on the bone. Given that the only way in which that crisis can be dealt with is by funds being secured from Europe, and in view of the concern that has been expressed to me over the weekend by farmers in my constituency, have you had any indication from the Government that they intend to make a statement to the House--first, about the crisis itself, and secondly, about when the application for European funds might be made?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Minister that the Government are seeking to make a statement on that issue.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that today you have received no request from the Paymaster General to make a statement on the interaction of his personal finances, including his interest in the £12 million offshore Orion trust, with his duties as a Treasury Minister preparing to remove the comparatively modest tax privileges of many of those with TESSAs and PEPs.
Is it not extraordinary and a gross discourtesy to the House that the hon. Gentleman is reported to have been consulting his expensive lawyers all morning, and that he is to issue a statement later, not through the House, but through the Treasury press office? As his own Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Newport,
West (Mr. Flynn), are calling for his resignation to clear the air, would it not have been much better if he had come to the House and made a clean breast of it?
Madam Speaker:
I have no indication of what is to be said in the statement, but I have no doubt that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the comments--hardly a point of order--of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will have noted that the questions to the Minister without Portfolio started three minutes late, and that you allowed them to continue for three minutes after they were timed to close. Given that the Minister said before the Select Committee on the subject of secrecy concerning the dome:
Madam Speaker:
The allocation of time to Ministers is nothing whatever to do with me. That is arranged through the usual channels. Perhaps if it were left to me, it would be quite different, but it is not my responsibility, and I have no authority in those matters--alas.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As I am a new Member of Parliament, can you give me some guidance on a matter of operation within the House? The Minister
Surely, as a matter of course, Members of Parliament have a duty to question Ministers and hold them to account, but it is proving impossible to hold the Minister without Portfolio to account for anything other than for five minutes on a very narrow aspect of his job. As a strong defender of the House, can you do something to help Members in that regard?
Madam Speaker:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I just gave. With reference to blocking measures, surely Members of Parliament have a good deal of ingenuity. They need ingenuity to get here in the first place. I should have thought that there was some way round the Order Paper and within the procedures of the House that the hon. Member and others could find.
Angela Smith, supported by Ms Debra Shipley, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. David Drew, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. David Chaytor and Ms Julia Drown, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to make arrangements to minimise the generation of waste in their area; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 97].
Order for Second Reading read.--[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Madam Speaker:
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is an historic moment for Wales. In the Bill, the Government seek the agreement of the House to the principle that there should be a national assembly for Wales--a new institution that will both herald a new style of more inclusive politics that better fits the needs and the character of Wales, and open to public scrutiny and accountability the machinery of government in Wales.
This United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign. The provisions of the Bill do not challenge that sovereignty in any way--nor could they. What the Bill does is open up a new prospect: the ever expanding powers and responsibilities with which Parliament has endowed the Secretary of State for Wales should in future be exercised by a body that is as responsible as the House is to its own democratic mandate. The Bill therefore contains the Government's detailed legislative proposals to set up the national assembly for Wales, and to take action to reform the quango state and so bring effective democratic control closer to the people of Wales.
Since the House considered the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, the Government have issued the White Paper, "A Voice for Wales", which sets out our detailed proposals for the assembly. Those proposals were put before the voters of Wales and were endorsed. The Bill faithfully translates the White Paper pledges into legislation--therefore, nothing in the Bill should come as a surprise to any right hon. or hon. Member.
The Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act set one test, and one test only. Although we challenged the official Opposition at the time to say in the House what other threshold they would set, they declined to do so. The majority of voters supported the proposals set out in the White Paper.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills):
How, in all fairness, can the Secretary of State claim that the proposals in the White Paper were endorsed by the referendum result? When given the opportunity to vote on and endorse those proposals, 75 per cent. of the Welsh electorate declined to do so. The vote in favour of the proposals was fractional, and was easily swamped by the many Welsh residents in constituencies such as mine and others throughout the west midlands and the rest of the country. The referendum provided no validation of the proposals. The only validation that the right hon. Gentleman can claim is that provided by the general election--which is a valid point.
Mr. Davies:
I trust that, like me, the hon. Gentleman recognises the sovereignty of this Parliament. Parliament
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has pursued his argument at length for some months, and I commend him on his consistency. However, I hope that he will now accept--and perhaps show the way to his right hon. and hon. Friends--that the referendum has been held. It did not produce a decisive decision, but the people of Wales gave a clear decision: they voted yes in the referendum. That is the mandate we sought, and that is the mandate on the basis of which we now proceed.
"I would not call it secrecy, I would call it an inhibition",
and, on the lack of information from the Millennium company, that he did not want
"excessive accountability at the expense of them getting on with their work",
do you agree that five minutes for questions is becoming farcical? Would it not be a better idea if that time were extended, or if it were combined with questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport?
3.44 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |