| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: That is why I was apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognised the fact that I should not have been led astray, and I was very contrite. I know you of old, and I know perfectly well that you like me to stand in sackcloth and ashes. I sinned and I apologised, although I was just a trifle surprised when you abused me for doing so. Well, I will overlook the matter on this occasion.
If I may, I shall revert to the main thrust of my remarks, and there are two bits to it. The first is to caution the Speaker against being away too long—not for the technical reasons on which we have just been trespassing, but for the more general reason that in many important respects he has safeguarded the rights of Back Benchers. While I would not for a moment suggest that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues would not seek to do likewise—that is not the thrust of what I want to say—sometimes the authority of the Speaker as such is necessary to safeguard our rights. Therefore we do not want Mr. Speaker to be away from the House longer than need be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the terms of the motion, in that the House has one question, and one question only, to decide: whether Mr. Speaker should be given leave of absence on the sitting day of 18 June.
Mr. Hogg: That is exactly why I am welcoming the fact that the motion provides for an absence of only one day. On subsequent occasions, such a motion might suggest that Mr. Speaker be absent on more than one day. I am speaking to the motion—namely, that he should be absent on only one day—and explaining why
it is so important that he be absent for only one day. He has used the authority of the Speaker's Chair in a number of important respects to safeguard the rights of Back Bench.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a good example of how Mr. Speaker has safeguarded the rights of Back Benchers is his asking the Prime Minister to come to the House on Wednesday to explain the reshuffle? That is a classic example of the role of the Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already had to tell the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that Standing Orders provide for there to be a substitute for the Speaker with all the same powers. It is to be hoped that they will be discharged in the same manner in defending the rights of Members of the House.
Mr. Hogg: I accept that of course, and I have no doubt that when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and indeed your colleagues, are in the Chair, you will not seek to do otherwise. As I ventured to say, however, this matter is rather like Secretaries of State: sometimes the authority of the office, not just the authority of the person, is needed to impress other powers in the land. There is no doubt, if I might respectfully say so, that the fact that the Speaker qua Speaker made the request to the Prime Minister had an impact on No. 10.
I say that not in any way to belittle you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is a basic truth. That takes one, therefore, to a fundamental proposition: Mr. Speaker has, qua Speaker, done a number of things, in his personal capacity and with the authority of the Chair, to reinforce the rights of Back Benchers, which is why we do not want to see him gone for more than one day.
I think that I will not in any way trespass on the patience of the House if I identify some things that Mr. Speaker has done to safeguard the powers and privileges of Members and say why, therefore, we do not want to spare him. The first involves the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Mr. Speaker has, on occasion, impressed on Secretaries of State the importance of making all public statements on policy change to this House first, and not through leakage. His request to No. 10 today is a reflection of that.
You may not have been in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you will have heard that the Deputy Prime Minister apologised earlier today for the leak in the weekend press as regards his statement.
That, I suggest, is one of the consequences of the action of the Speaker qua Speaker in deploring that habit. In that respect, the Speaker has been safeguarding our interests, rights and privileges.
Mr. Bercow: Given that the decision to award Mr. Speaker an honorary doctorate constitutes both a testimony to his meteoric rise to his present post and a comment on his excellent custodianship of the role of Speaker, does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that if the university of Glasgow were made aware of the significant anxiety, at least among Conservative Members, about Mr. Speaker's prospective absence—which might be reflected in the negativing of the
motion—the university would in all probability agree to rearrange the date? Might not that avenue be usefully explored?
Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the House would wish, in a cavalier fashion, to disappoint either the university or Mr. Speaker. It is clear that Mr. Speaker wishes to go to the university; otherwise we would not be debating the motion. I would not want to see Mr. Speaker disappointed, or the university disappointed. As we have been promised that Mr. Speaker will be away for only one day, I do not think I would adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister's apology for a leak to the weekend press of the statement that he made earlier. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the announcement made at 6 pm on Thursday was in fact an announcement of a change in Government policy—of a new Government policy, indeed—and that, as such—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is well outside the scope of the motion.
Mr. Hogg: I take the hint, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not respond to my hon. Friend's question, as I think you would say that I was out of order. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.
Michael Fabricant: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—whose question was, of course, in order—is there not a danger that if the university of Glasgow thought the House believed it would be wrong for the Speaker to be absent on that day, the award of the degree per se might be jeopardised? If the degree were not awarded, would that not be to the detriment not just of the Speaker but of the House? After all, the awarding of a doctorate is not only a great privilege for the Speaker; it reflects well on this place.
Mr. Hogg: I agree with that. I think it would be a great pity if the university cast the doctorate into question for any reason. Not only is it an honour to the Speaker, and, as my hon. Friend says, an honour to the House, in a sense; it also stresses the integrity of the United Kingdom. In many ways, the integrity of the United Kingdom, by which I mean its unity, has been put at risk by the Government's policies. It is therefore rather cheering to observe the university of Glasgow recognising that there is in Mr. Speaker a proper recipient for an honour, and thus demonstrating the integrity and oneness of this realm.
I am afraid that I have been diverted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you like me to keep strictly in order, so I shall do my best to return to the main themes that I had in mind. As you will recall, I was saying that the Speaker qua Speaker, exercising his personal authority and influence, has done much to safeguard the rights of Back Benchers. One thing that he has done—if you will forgive me for saying so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it
is more difficult for Deputy Speakers to do this—is grant emergency questions. Emergency questions, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is absolutely no difference between the responsibilities involved. If the Speaker is absent, the Chairman of Ways and Means exercises full responsibility and makes exactly the same judgments, based on the same criteria.
Mr. Hogg: I accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no difference between the nominal powers of the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker. You will recall, though, from my point about what Mr. Speaker had done with regard to No. 10, that sometimes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now trying to make too much of one particular point. There are absolutely no grounds for supposing that any occupant of the Chair would have taken any different decision on the basis of the advice available. It is a false argument—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not remain in order by suggesting it—that there is any division to be drawn between the Speaker and anyone else appointed by the House in the Speaker's place.
Mr. Hogg: I would in no way formally quarrel with what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, with your enormous experience of this place, you will know how the House prefers to see a Secretary of State rather than a Minister of State—and it applies even more in respect of an Under-Secretary—answering from the Dispatch Box. That is not to criticise the persons concerned, but to say that, for some purposes, the full authority of the office has to be deployed. Although it is perfectly true that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, possess all the nominal powers of Mr. Speaker, it remains the case that sometimes, however rarely, one needs the authority of the office as opposed to the formal powers of the function.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |