| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con):
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we meet here, I understand that it has been trailed on television that the Prime Minister is making a major statement about these proceedings outside Downing street—as we meet here. You are rightly jealous of the rights of this House. Last
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1854
night, it emerged that the Prime Minister's statement that the security services had advised against a sunset clause was wrong, but he refused to come here to explain. Is it not time—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am busy enough looking after the affairs of this Chamber. What goes on outside the Chamber is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] Order. This House has been called to look after a certain piece of legislation, and that is what we are going to do. I can deal with this matter simply and say that it is not a point of order, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to pursue it.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What I am going to do is this. In a moment, I shall read out the title of the Bill, so we will be given a time at which the clock will start ticking. I will then accept points of order.
Before I do that, please allow me to make a statement. I would like to express my gratitude—and I am sure that I speak for all hon. and right hon. Members—to the Officers and staff of the House for the hard work and dedication that they have shown and I am sure will continue to show during today's sitting.
Lords reasons further considered.
3.32 pm
Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords insist on an amendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their amendments in lieu thereof, for which insistence and disagreement they assign their reason. They do not insist on an amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, disagree to the amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu, but do propose an amendment in lieu thereof, and they do not insist on certain other of their amendments to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and agree without amendment to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.
Sir Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I associate myself with the observations made a moment ago by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)? You are by tradition, history and convention the guardian of the interests of the House and the protector of our ability to discharge our responsibilities. If a statement is being made outside the House that bears on these proceedings, how then can we properly fulfil our responsibilities? May I take it that, if the Prime Minister were to seek your approval to make a statement before the House, you would readily assent to that?
Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that it is insulting and contemptuous to the proceedings in this House for a Minister to behave in this way? Will you not protect the House in these circumstances?
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past you have expressed grave
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1855
displeasure when Ministers have come to the House second, after having made on a radio or television programme an announcement that was due to be made in the House. Is there not therefore precedent for you to call the Prime Minister to account for making a statement outside the House, instead of in the House? It is a contempt of Parliament. His Parliamentary Private Secretary is present. You could dispatch him to No. 10 and get the Prime Minister to come and answer the questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer. We are now on timetabled business. We are therefore considering the business before us. Many Members of the House, Government and Opposition have discussed the matter outside the House, and I will not stop anyone doing so. I have an hour's business before me and I am applying the rules of the House. That is what I will do. If someone tables an urgent question on Monday, I will consider these matters, but let us get on with the business in hand.
Mr. Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does it lie within your power to grant a brief adjournment of the House to enable us to study what the Prime Minister has said, in case it is germane to the proceedings that we are about to begin?
Mr. Speaker: That sounds sensible. It looks as though we will have a brief suspension within an hour and a half, and we can then discuss all the matters we want to discuss.
Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the right hon. Gentleman takes the matter very seriously, as he has spoken to me about it. We are now timetabled and the clock is ticking away.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a possibility that what the Prime Minister is saying to the press will have a serious impact on this debate. Until we know what he is saying, we cannot properly address the debate. Therefore, in seeking an adjournment, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is entirely right.
Mr. Speaker: Let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a promise. As I stated to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, within an hour and a half these proceedings will be suspended. I will look at a transcript of what the Prime Minister said. I promise to do that.
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am getting rather weary of points of order that are not genuine points of order.
Mr. Foulkes: Is it in order to raise points of order on media speculation and hypothetical matters? If it is, I could do it every day.
Mr. Speaker:
Order.
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1856
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister's office have the courtesy to inform your office that he would be making a statement at the same time as we would be reconvening to discuss these matters?
Mr. Grieve: I beg to move, That the House do now adjourn so that we can listen to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
Copies of the Lords reasons are available in the Vote Office, as are the Government's propositions relating to the message. All Government proposals are being debated together.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 1A and 1B to Lords amendment 1, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 and insists on its amendments 37A to 37C and 37E to 37O and 37X, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 37Q, 37S and 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 8, insists on its amendments 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment 17 and disagrees with Lords amendment 37Y.
In the light of the points of order, I should like to make it clear to the House that my remarks will set out clearly for the House to debate and discuss the situation on the Bill. As Home Secretary, I will set out the position in a moment. Right hon. and hon. Members will have every opportunity to discuss it.
Later this afternoon—not at this moment—the Prime Minister will give certain media interviews. He is not making a statement, as reported. You, Mr. Speaker, were entirely correct when you referred to media speculation in that regard. Like many other Members of the House, as you observed, the Prime Minister is giving interviews later this afternoon. That is perfectly appropriate.
Mr. Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be making a point of order.
Mr. Heald: The information given on the television was that the interview was at Downing street at 3.30—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |