| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I yield to no one in my admiration for the excellence of the academic institution of Glasgow university, notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend
happens to be a graduate of it. Does he agree, however, that thoroughly worthy though the honour is, and timely though its conferral in the course of your speakership, Mr. Speaker, might be, it is a trifle inconsiderate, not to say maladroit, of the university to hold the ceremony on the occasion of Prime Minister's questions, which might, as a result, be slightly less orderly than it otherwise would be?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, as ever, anticipates a later part of my analysis, but I do not want to rush into that. I think that he would be disappointed if I did not stick to at least some coherence in my speech. I do not want to leap about because although my hon. Friend would be able to follow my logic without any effort, it might cause some Labours Members to struggle a bit.
Having glanced on the Glaswegian aspect of the motion, I am struck by the fact that the House must pause for a moment to consider—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to leave the Chair; I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am very touched by his remarks, but when I was at Rolls-Royce in Hillington, I only had to ask the foreman for a day off. [Laughter.]
Mr. Forth: I thought that we should then go on to consider, because it is relevant to the motion, the great responsibilities placed on the Speaker. I shall then risk, and it is a risk, touching on the delicate relationship between the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): Before my right hon. Friend leaves the Glasgow connection, has it not crossed his mind that he is not going up to Glasgow on Wednesday because of his former membership of the Communist party? Will he confirm that, although his background is similar, Mr. Speaker does not share that in common with my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Forth: Mr. Speaker and I share many things in our background, including the fact that we were both raised in tenement buildings in Glasgow. I think that I am also right that Mr. Speaker's father and mine were both members of the Merchant Navy. We therefore have many things in common, but although I indeed stood as a Communist candidate in my school days, I suspect that Mr. Speaker had a much more respectable youth, which is probably why he is where he is, and I am where I am.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the doctorate to be conferred on Mr. Speaker by the university of Glasgow is a great deal more respectable than the doctorate in English that our late, lamented colleague, Sir Frederic Bennett, received from the university of Istanbul? Is Mr. Speaker's degree not a more appropriate mark of affection and esteem for the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I do not believe that the scope of the motion allows us to discuss the general question of the conferment of degrees on Members of the House.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have tried to focus, as you know, very much on the Glaswegian aspects of the motion.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield): Before my right hon. Friend leaves the conferment of degrees in Glasgow, is he aware that this Wednesday at the same time as Mr. Speaker is honoured in Glasgow, a similar honour will be conferred on Mr. Gus O'Donnell, the spin doctor for the last Conservative Government before 1997?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am assured that that lies entirely outside the scope of this matter.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): As Wednesday is Waterloo day, is Mr. Speaker to be escorted by a guard of honour from Scottish regiments?
Mr. Forth: I am sure that it would greatly help the House if we had further particulars of the ceremony in which Mr. Speaker will participate. However, perhaps other colleagues can help because, sadly, I have not had time to research the nature of the ceremony or its appropriateness.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend will know that the former Lord Chancellor attended the university of Glasgow, so perhaps Mr. Speaker may wish to ask him whether he would like to go to Glasgow too so that he can get an honorary degree as a small consolation for being peremptorily discharged.
Mr. Forth: Would that I had influence on such matters. Sadly, I have not been approached by my alma mater, but I am delighted that Mr. Speaker has. Whether the former Lord Chancellor deserves any recognition by his alma mater is entirely a matter of judgment. My right hon. and learned Friend has described it as a compensatory gesture, but that is further than I would like to go.
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): Has my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) not hit the nail on the head, and pointed to the dangers of Mr. Speaker going away, given that the Lord Chancellor, who performs the duties of Speaker in the other place, was peremptorily dismissed? Is it not a risk for anyone occupying a post more than several hundred years old to leave Westminster as they may be labelled a member of the forces of conservatism and treated in a similar fashion? Would not Mr. Speaker be better advised to stay at home?
Mr. Forth: I suspect that my hon. Friend has trailed the speech that he wants to make. There is a legitimate analysis to be made of Mr. Speaker's request, given the statement being made as we speak in another place. We may want to look at the risk that he runs in any prolonged or even brief absence from the House, given the Government's mood about Officers presiding over parliamentary Chambers. However, that is a matter for my hon. Friend, not me.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Did my right hon. Friend not notice that Mr. Speaker seemed very relaxed when this matter came up for debate? Should we not have a fount of good will towards Mr. Speaker on this
of all days, as he has stood up for the rights and liberties of this House and insisted on a statement from the Prime Minister? Will my right hon. Friend take that into account when thinking about requests for leave of absence?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will touch on that later in my remarks, but just to give a hint of the argument that I might want to employ, it is the absence of Mr. Speaker on Wednesday 18 June that might cause us some concern. He made a magnificent gesture today in defending the rights of the House and effectively summoning the Prime Minister, and we may not have that at our disposal on Wednesday.
Were there to be by Wednesday a continuation of the undoubted constitutional crisis that we are now suffering, the burden might fall on your shoulders, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to drag you into this unnecessarily, but it may be unavoidable to touch on your role, because during Mr. Speaker's absence you will in almost every sense of the word be an able substitute for him. I shall return to that later.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): On the way into the Palace of Westminster there is the mural of Sir Thomas More as a young Speaker defying the King's man in the demand for money without debate, so there is a precedent going back a long way for denying the Lord Chancellor, who was then the Head of the King's Government too. Given the fact that the Lord Chancellor has been threatened, as others mentioned, and that, as my right hon. Friend said, something of a constitutional precedent has been set by the Speaker demanding that the Prime Minister come to the House, is it not a good occasion to reflect that we need the Speaker here, and to consider whether in future there may be occasions when the House might ask the Speaker not to leave the premises?
Mr. Forth: That is a matter for judgment on each occasion, and the House will have to make its judgment because the motion—I think I am right in saying—as well as being debatable is votable, and it is possible for the House to vote not to give Mr. Speaker leave of absence, as the motion requests.
I shall argue, if I am allowed to proceed—I have only got into my introductory remarks—that on this occasion we should give leave of absence to Mr. Speaker, not just because of the pride that we must all feel in the honour being done to him, and not just because of my personal involvement as a Glaswegian, but because on this occasion we might want to test the waters, as it were, to see whether we can manage without Mr. Speaker even for a day, and even for a day as important as Wednesday will be, as I hope to point out.
Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would all be much more likely to agree that the Speaker should go away for a day if we got an assurance from those on the Government Front Bench that there will be no attempt to mount a coup against the Speaker in his absence, as there was against the Lord Chancellor?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |