| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dobson: We have already issued new guidelines on adoption with a view to trying to promote adoption and encouraging it. In fairness to those who are responsible, there are quite substantial ethical and practical problems about vetting potential adoptive parents. On one hand, we cannot blame the vetting organisation if something goes wrong and, on the other, say that it should not be taking as much time and care as at present. We want to make changes and we want to promote adoption, but it must be safe adoption. It should not lie with any local authority or anyone else to be handing over children to people unless they are absolutely certain that those children will be properly looked after.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall be returning to this issue on numerous occasions. I intend to move on now.
Speaker's Statement
4.18 pm
Madam Speaker: I am now able to reply to the point raised with me on Thursday last by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who asserted that the contents of the Gracious Speech were available in advance to some Members outside the Government and not to others. He sought my advice on whether what he called a private coalition across the Floor, which allowed some of those party to it to continue to enjoy the full rights of Opposition, had been established.
On the first point, it seems to me that, until it has been delivered, the text of the Gracious Speech is not a document of which the House has cognisance. How far it may be made available at that stage and on what basis is not therefore a matter for me. It is a matter for the Government.
As for the second issue, my responsibility is to guide the House in enforcing its Standing Orders. I know nothing of private coalitions. I can only draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield to Standing Order No. 14(3), which, for the purposes of allotting Opposition Days, defines an Opposition party as one
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield):
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your statement. I ask you to keep an eye on this issue. You will recall that, when the so-called Lib-Lab pact was arrived at in 1977, the then Prime Minister made a statement, there was a debate that day and a vote. What I believe is the creeping coalition has never been put to the electorate. It has never been put to the House, never debated and never voted upon. However the Standing Orders may have been drafted, what I believe to be the creeping coalition has subtly changed relationships in the Chamber. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to keep an eye on this and perhaps to insist that Ministers make statements to Parliament on matters that concern the House itself.
Madam Speaker:
I have not been a Member of Parliament for as long as the right hon. Gentleman, but I remember the occasion to which he refers. I assure him that I am interested, and that I shall keep my eyes and my ears open in respect of such matters.
"not represented in Her Majesty's Government".
In this connection, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention also to the fact that, on the Order Paper, there is an amendment to the Address standing in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party.
4.25 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance as to the exact parameters of your ruling, given at column 208 of the Official Report on 25 November, on matters relating to debate on the arrest of General Pinochet? For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of Hansard and I shall read it to you.
Madam Speaker: I should like a copy of the Hansard, too.
Mr. Leigh: Shall I pass it to you?
Madam Speaker: On a detailed point of order such as this, it would have been nice to have had a little notice, so that I might give a correct reply.
Mr. Leigh: I apologise, Madam Speaker. At column 208, you said:
- "The courts may have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain. The matter of the charges against him therefore remains sub judice."--[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 208.]
- "The sole question before your Lordships is whether, by reason of his status as a former head of state, Senator Pinochet is immune".
- "No one has so far infringed the sub judice rules, but we are getting close. My clear ruling is that we may talk about relations between this country and Chile, as has been done, and we may talk about the possible effect on those relations of the decision whether Pinochet should be extradited. However, we cannot talk about any criminal charges".--[Official Report, 27 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 454.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now becoming rather tedious. Will he come to his point of order?
Mr. Leigh: My point of order is that, on Friday, we debated what General Pinochet had or had not done in Chile and what he was alleged to have done, but there remains some confusion as to exactly when we became out of order. There have been thousands of column inches in the press expressing views on the issue. Page 384 of "Erskine May"--
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to his point of order.
Mr. Leigh: Page 384 of "Erskine May" states:
- "Successive Speakers have exercised their discretion to allow matters to be discussed, on which (although they fall within the strict terms of the sub judice rule) they have considered that no substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings would arise."
-
My point of order is this: because there have been thousands of column inches of debate in the national press, it seems rather restrictive that Members of Parliament, apparently alone in the nation, are not allowed to discuss the issue. As we move into an era where, under the Human Rights Act 1998, judges--especially the Law Lords--will be required to make more judgments on intensely political issues, will you consider using your discretion as Speaker to widen the sub judice rule so that we can have a proper debate in the House?
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can answer the point of order. I do not want to have to go through any more tedious columns.
I have considered the matter carefully, and not only when I made my first statement. I am as concerned as any other Member of Parliament about the House's ability to debate the matter. I watch proceedings daily, I seek advice and listen to it, and I make my own decisions on the sub judice rule in accordance with what is in "Erskine May" and the practices of the House. I am convinced that the right time to lift the sub judice rule will not be until all legal proceedings are finished and the Home Secretary has been able to come to a conclusion on the matter. When that has happened, I am certain that the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Law Officers, will come to the House and report properly; the House can debate the matter at that time.
I think that proceedings on Friday went according to plan. Had they not done so, whichever of the Deputy Speakers was in the Chair would have brought the House's attention to the infringement of the sub judice rule.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your further guidance?
Madam Speaker:
I have no further guidance to offer.
Mr. Wilkinson:
My point of order is this: Her Majesty's Ministers--for example, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--have vouchsafed various comments about Senator Pinochet. That, I presume, is perfectly all right, and Members of this House can broadcast and write articles on the subject, although we cannot debate it. Is that the position?
Madam Speaker:
That is the position. In this House, we do not have the luxury that the press and media have to debate and discuss this matter as we wish. We have rules, Standing Orders and procedures, which we follow. I, as Speaker of this House, must uphold those Standing Orders and those procedures, and I shall continue to do so.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice about the fact that Sir Gordon Downey is retiring today. My point of order in no way impinges on the way in which he has carried out his duties--it raises another point. His successor, Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin, is not to be appointed
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |