| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kilfoyle: No. I will not give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Lady cannot remain standing--the Minister is obviously not giving way. The right hon. Lady must sit down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must sit down. I am ordering her to be seated, please.
Mrs. Bottomley: In that case, I shall leave.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is up to the right hon. Lady.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an invariable convention in the House that when one hon. Member not only names another, but positively launches an attack on her, he always gives way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. What is a matter for the Chair is that when I give an order for an hon. Member to be seated, that hon. Member must be seated.
Mr. Kilfoyle: I had not even finished what I was saying, but it seems academic now.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) commented, on a point of order, that the Select Committee on European Legislation had been refused the opportunity to refer certain matters to a Standing Committee. I rebut that. It was the Select Committee that changed its mind about referring matters to the Standing Committee. It is important that that should go on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is a singular individual. I am sorry that I was unable to persuade him on another occasion to vote in a certain way. I am sure that tonight he will see the sense of the Government's amendment to the Opposition motion, and I know that he will support us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made the point, which seems to have escaped the notice of several hon. Members, that there is at times a problem of secrecy with Select Committees. Some right hon. and hon. Members acknowledge that, but others act as if Ministers did not sometimes have to face the problem of how to deal with Select Committees. That must be recognised by all concerned.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) made a constructive contribution on the possible development of the role of Select Committees. He asked how advice to Ministers should be construed. I would construe it with great circumspection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) rightly pointed out the importance of the debate, but I should tell her to beware of Tories bearing gifts of support. It is a poisoned chalice,
make no mistake about it. She referred to the Foreign Secretary being forced to change his mind about his response to the Select Committee. I can only say to my hon. Friend that if a Secretary of State does not wish to give information, that information will not be forthcoming.
If my hon. Friend needs confirmation of that, I refer her to the Trade and Industry Committee's third report of Session 1995-96, paragraph 168, which refers to the former President of the Board of Trade. The Committee remarked:
Mr. Mackinlay:
That does not make it right.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
It certainly does not make it right, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has offered time and again to compromise with the Select Committee.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made a witty contribution based on an analogy with the game of cricket. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) pointed out that the Opposition had scored an own goal in the debate. What came to mind was the own goal scored by Colombia in 1994, and we know what happened to the player who put that own goal into his net. I hope that the same does not happen to any Opposition Member.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made a general contribution on the role of Select Committees and raised again the Tory myth about resources for the Select Committees. There may indeed be a huge problem of resources, but it is not a problem for the Government. That is a matter for the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not blame this Government for the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) presented a reasoned, sensible approach to a mutually acceptable resolution of the difficulties faced by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire told us lots and lots about what we are not discussing. I am always amazed by his comments. Hon. Members are depicted as good Members of the House as long as they agree with the Conservative Opposition. He said that we should begin by asking why the debate had been held. I prefer the views of those of my hon. Friends who have said that some people are playing a game. The Tories are not interested in the way in which Select Committees are constituted, or in the powers of the Secretary of State or Ministers vis-a-vis particular Select Committees, but in scoring cheap political points.
For example, the hon. Gentleman referred to the alleged inability of the Leader of the House to find time for today's debate. We have had today's debate now, and I did not see many Opposition Members enjoying any stage of it. The Opposition could have chosen a half-day debate, but instead they chose a full day's debate on something that has turned out to be a damp squib.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) started off with a whimper and ended up with a sigh--at least, there was certainly a sigh of relief on Government Benches. The right hon. Gentleman made no impact and added nothing to our understanding of the issues before us.
What we are saying to the Foreign Affairs Committee is simple; it is "Not yet," rather than "No." There is nothing unusual about a Select Committee awaiting the outcome of a specific formal inquiry. There is nothing unusual about the Government deferring answers until such an inquiry has reported. The previous Government declined to answer parliamentary questions about arms to Iraq while the Scott inquiry was being held.
The present Government are committed to being open with Parliament. We are not trying to frustrate the Foreign Affairs Committee's inquiry in any way. The Committee could look at the relevant telegrams in private now, and Ministers will answer outstanding questions when Legg has reported. The only issue is whether there should be public disclosure, before Legg reports, of part of the evidence that Legg is considering.
The Legg report will be published. We want that inquiry to do a proper job and to report soon, and it cannot do so if those involved also have to answer questions in a parallel inquiry by the Select Committee. We fully respect Select Committees' right to ask for information. That is at the very heart of the way in which Parliament works, with individual Members, Select Committees and the House collectively seeking information.
Select Committees have the powers that the House gives them. They cannot be more powerful than the House itself. The House debated Sierra Leone on 18 May and agreed a resolution that included approval of the Government's commitment to an urgent outside investigation and publication of a full report. The Chairman of the Select Committee said that
I hope that the Committee will now accept the opportunity, generously offered, to see the summary of the telegrams for which it has asked, on a well-precedented, confidential basis--named, ironically enough, the Pergau process, after an inquiry during the previous Administration that many in the House will remember well.
The Foreign Secretary has offered to appear before the Select Committee, and that may prove a way for the Committee to find its own way out of its difficulties--difficulties, I have to say, that the Committee itself has created.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:--
"We regret that the Government was not willing to allow the Committee, or even a single member of the Committee--a Privy Councillor and former Foreign Office Minister--to inspect the original intelligence reports."
That is obduracy from a Secretary of State.
"it would be unwise to attempt to duplicate or parallel the inquiry".
Those are his words, not mine. He also said that if the Legg inquiry were conducted in public,
"such an inquiry would take a long time".--[Official Report, 18 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 621.]
Those, too, are his words, not mine.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |