| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): I echo the condolences that the Foreign Secretary has offered so eloquently.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly reminded us all that Turkey is a NATO member, and one that has suffered two atrocities in a relatively short time. Have the Turkish Government yet made any formal request to NATO for assistance, whether under article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty or through some other mechanism? If it were to do so, would it not be important for the whole alliance to demonstrate its solidarity with the Turks by responding sympathetically?
Mr. Straw: There has been no specific request under article 5, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will probably understand, but we are ready to provide whatever assistance we can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already made clear that that includes whatever military assistance we can give the Turkish authorities.
Patrick Mercer (Newark): May I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's comments, especially his robust observations about the continuing war on terrorism?
Last week we were told, in the context of homeland security, that the level of the state of alert had been raised. We were told, via a BBC news programme rather
than by the Government, that there was a distinct threat to British possessions overseas. May I entreat the Foreign Secretary, and indeed the Home Secretary, to treat us more responsibly, and to let the British population know the position so that we can be more alert and act as our own intelligence officers?
Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Obviously it is crucial, when we are advising British citizens who are going abroad and those representing British interests abroad, that we make our assessment of the nature of the threat explicit. There is a separate discussion to be had about how specific we should be in respect of an assessment of the threat in the United Kingdom. I support the position of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I shall be happy to relay the hon. Gentleman's remarks to him.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): I echo the condolences, and also the strong messages of support for the Turkish Government.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the tough message delivered by President Bush in London yesterday? He said that if we were to defeat international terrorism, we must shake off "decades of failed policy" in the middle east when we tolerated oppression in return for stability.
Mr. Straw: It was a good speech, and I thought that particular passage excellent. President Bush has underlined the message from the Arab world itself. As Members may know, two important reports produced by Arab intellectuals, funded by the United Nations Development Programme, have said that the Arab world can no longer use as a crutch the idea that it is a victim of outside oppression, or the idea that people from the Arab world and the Islamic faith are incapable of prosperity and democracy. Those ideas, they say, are an affront to their own people. President Bush echoed a demand that is increasingly emanating from the Arab world itself.
Points of Order
1.14 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given notice to the Foreign Secretary. Today's Order Paper refers to ministerial statements. There is a written statement in the Foreign Secretary's name relating to Iraq. On checking the statement, I discovered that it relates to decisions made last week on changes made in the coalition strategy in relation to Iraq. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary last week asking him to make a statement in the House about those changes.
You, Mr. Speaker, have frequently emphasised the importance of Ministers making statements to the House, particularly on matters of significance. Has the Foreign Secretary, at any stage in the past week, sought your permission to make a statement in the House about those changes in Iraq? If not, does not airing them in a written ministerial statement that cannot be questioned, on the last day of the parliamentary Session, constitute a gross abuse of the processes of the House which should be severely deprecated?
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that the Foreign Secretary wishes to say something, but let me first tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there were two applications for urgent questions, which I refused. It would be inappropriate to allow any discussion of that refusal.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and also to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for giving me notice of his point of order.
I could not make a statement last week, although I would have liked to, because I was in Washington discussing the policy that led to the announcements by the Governing Council on Saturday. Even had I been here, because we were putting a series of proposals to the Governing Council for it to endorse, amend or reject, it would have been inappropriate to make a premature disclosure about the nature of the discussions before Saturday.
As for this week, I was in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday. I therefore was not here to make a statement, although we kept matters constantly under review. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked urgent questions of you, Mr. Speaker, and you have dealt with them. I considered whether I should make a statement yesterday, but there was much else on the Order Paper. Urgent questions are a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. I therefore thought that the House would appreciate a written statement.
Had I been here, I would have been delighted to make a statement at the beginning of the week on the outcome of my discussions and the British Government's involvement in the decisions made at the end of last week. Only my physical absence from the country prevented me from doing so. Whatever else may be said about me, I do not believe that Members on either side of the House would suggest that I do not keep the House informed by means of oral statements whenever I can.
Sittings of the House
1.17 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move,
- That, at the sittings on Monday 24th and Tuesday 25th November—
(1) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that, one hour after the commencement of the sitting, the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
(2) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Surely the new procedures mean that we need much less notice of questions? What does the Leader of the House think of the way I was treated over a parliamentary question tabled on 3 March? The answer was put on my desk late last night, and it read:
- "I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy . . . in the Library."
Mr. Hain: I understand that the hon. Gentleman raised this yesterday, and was given a very clear answer. [Interruption.] If Members would calm down and let me speak, it would be for the convenience of the House.
As the House will know, the motion is necessary only because of the extreme and highly irregular attitude adopted by Opposition and Liberal peers last night. The decision to adjourn against the Government's wishes was entirely contrary to the usual conventions.
On the "Today" programme this morning, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) argued that the Lords were justified in objecting to Government Bills. He highlighted
- "crossbenchers in the House of Lords who've been crucial to the outcome of the votes there" .
The Government were repeatedly defeated yesterday by a coalition of Conservatives and their partners in crime, the Liberal Democrats. On foundation hospitals, 101 Tories and 51 Liberal Democrats voted against the Government. On fighting fraud, 117 Tories and 55 Liberal Democrats voted against the Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |