| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) rose--
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) rose--
Mr. Forth: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when considering the motion, Madam Speaker may wish to take into account the written question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster):
- "To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of hunting with dogs."
Mr. Forth: Those are the judgments that the House and Madam Speaker will have to make today. I cannot conceive that, with Madam Speaker's guidance, we could make the tragic mistake of adjourning unnecessarily early, and thus deny an opportunity for such statements to be made. It would surely be a tragic mistake if, at this stage of the Session, we were to adjourn without having given Ministers a proper opportunity to come to the House to clarify these matters and one or two others that I want to refer to. What would people think of us then? The House of Commons has all the opportunities in the world today--and perhaps tomorrow; who knows?--to give these matters proper consideration and to allow the Government to clarify their position, to the benefit of everybody, including the House. If we were to deny the Government and the House those opportunities, we would not be readily forgiven.
That is a serious matter, and one to which we must give consideration, but I want to return for a moment to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). At Scottish questions the other day, I asked a question--which I thought was rather a good one, if I may say so--about a Minister's judgment on what would be more damaging to health: the consumption of beef on the bone
or the consumption of beef produced from a food chain originating with human sewage. I thought that that was a perfectly reasonable question.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are scripts being given out in the House? Might it be possible for all Members of the House to have them?
Madam Speaker:
If papers are being passed around the House, that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Forth:
I do not operate from scripts, as you well know, Madam Speaker. The only script that I have is a few handwritten notes to guide me and to ensure that I stay in order in terms of the motion before us.
As the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has raised the point, it has been drawn to my attention that a written question on foxhunting, tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to the Home Secretary, which has just been handed to me, is being answered today. The Home Secretary says:
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a sad day? His remarks and what is going on in the other place make it clear that the Government are savaging one Chamber and completely ignoring the other.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I wanted to come on to today's proceedings in the other place, which have direct relevance to the relationship between the other place and the House--do they not? In the context of what the House did yesterday--to the House of Lords Bill in particular--and their Lordships' deliberations on that Bill today, we have to make our own judgment about
Madam Speaker:
Order. May I have one of the papers that are being passed around the Chamber?
Mr. Forth:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Does my right hon. Friend think that the House ought to be suspended while the Labour party hands out its own scripts?
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that it would be
Madam Speaker:
If any Minister wishes to make a statement, he simply lets me know. In this case, the statement is being made by means of a written answer, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, according to our procedures, that is perfectly in order.
Mr. Forth:
Of course that is in order, as you, Madam Speaker, have just ruled. However, the House will be very conscious of the fact that, by using a written answer to reply to a question that Labour Members think is important and by not asking your permission to make a statement to the House, the Home Secretary has denied the House the opportunity to question him on what lies behind his answer. I am afraid that that is all too typical of the attitude that Ministers, including the Home Secretary, have repeatedly shown. I presume that the Home Secretary has something to hide, and I suspect that he has as much to hide from his own colleagues as from Conservative Members because he has not asked you for permission to make a statement and to be questioned by the House.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
I have just had the opportunity to look at the Home Secretary's answer, and there may be another reason why, even now, he might feel embarrassed enough to want to come to the House to make a statement. He refers to the setting up of an inquiry into the consequences of banning hunting, whereas an honest approach would be to set up an inquiry and a royal commission into fox control generally. Will my right hon. Friend speculate as to why the Home Secretary is setting up a much more limited inquiry?
Madam Speaker:
Order. I will not allow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to speculate on that. As the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) knows, the right hon. Member is doing very well simply by making passing references to subjects, but I cannot allow him to discuss the details.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the new Members of the House, will you offer us your guidance as to when it is appropriate for a Minister to answer a question on a matter of considerable public interest via a written answer as opposed to making a statement in the House?
Madam Speaker:
Ministers' choices are not a matter for me.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I right in thinking that it would be almost unprecedented for a Minister to make a statement to the House about the mechanism whereby an agreed policy was delivered?
Madam Speaker:
The right hon. Lady is correct. I caution the House that we must not get into such details on
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Government approach the House authorities about an issue on which a Minister had said that the authorities would not be approached until a particular inquiry had been completed, will the House authorities say that they will not talk to the Minister because he had said that he would not approach them earlier? The detail of the Home Secretary's answer says specifically that the House authorities will be consulted, but, in the next paragraph, it states that the inquiry will take place first. What responsibility do the House authorities have for carrying out the Minister's words?
Madam Speaker:
That is totally hypothetical at this stage. I would like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to continue.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it not be in order, before the House adjourns, for the Prime Minister, recognising the inadequacy of one of his answers yesterday, to come before us to provide further and better particulars of his view and that of the Government on the matter in question?
"I am announcing today how the Government wish to proceed on this issue."
That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was making. The Home Secretary normally prides himself on openness and, if I remember rightly, he is responsible for the Freedom of Information Bill, but the very man who will introduce that Bill to the House is trying to sneak out a grubby little statement in a written answer. He is not here today, although he has every opportunity to be so. If ever there were a good example of the need for the House to give him an opportunity to clarify the position, surely this is it.
"any Messages from the Lords",
to which the motion refers, and whether to adjourn the House. We must give some thought to the possibilities that exist of their Lordships making further amendments to the Bill. [Interruption.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |