The
Chairman: Order. While it is a convention that the debate
would usually cease after the Minister has concluded his speech,
because we are still within time, Members have the perfect right to
indicate that they wish to speak. Mr. Burns has done
so.
3.10
pm
Mr.
Burns: I did not intend to speak, and I do not wish to
detain the Committee for long. I felt a need to intervene because the
Minister seemed to misunderstand, or cast aspersions on, the role of
the Opposition parties on these Committees. My hon. Friend the Member
for North-East Milton Keynes made it clear at the beginning of his
comments that the official Opposition—and, I think that I am
right in saying, the Liberal Democrats as well—fully support the
orders. We certainly will not force a Division on them, because we
agree with what is behind them. However, the Minister has to
understand—I know that he has been in the House for only a
relatively short time—that Committees considering statutory
instruments are not an opportunity for the Opposition parties to roll
over and accept everything. Our role, even if we agree with the orders,
is to question Ministers when we have misunderstandings or do not fully
appreciate—
Mr.
Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Hancock. I do
not want to silence anyone—far from it—but I am not quite
sure about this. The Minister has summed
up—
The
Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. I have
already
ruled.
Mr.
Winnick: My point of order is simply to ask whether the
explanation that is being given is part of the
debate.
The
Chairman: The explanation is perfectly in order. That
point of order is not valid because the Standing Orders do not rule out
other Members speaking after the Minister has spoken, if there is time
remaining. It is for the individual Member to make references in his or
her speech in his or her own way, and no one can ask for more than
that. I am sure that Mr. Burns knows only too well the will
of the Committee, and that he will stick to the line that he is
taking.
Mr.
Burns: I am grateful, Mr. Hancock.
As I was
saying, these orders involve expenditure of more than £2 billion
and it would be remiss of any Opposition party not to question the
Government and the Minister responsible for the orders when we have the
opportunity to do so, as we do this afternoon. I think that it was
misguided of the Minister to cast aspersions on the two Opposition
parties when they were seeking information, clarification and
explanation, just because he felt that they should not do that. He
hinted that we were doing it for a motive other than that of fulfilling
our duty to hold the Government to account, even though we sympathise
and are in broad agreement with the thrust of the
legislation.
The
Chairman: The Minister may choose to
reply.
Mr.
Malik: Briefly, I wish to clarify that it was not two
Opposition parties but one. I would have more sympathy with the hon.
Gentleman’s comments if we had not heard constant sniggering,
which I am afraid does not give me confidence that cheap political
point scoring is not taking
place.
The
Chairman: For the benefit of good order and of getting the
motions carried while we are still all in agreement, it would be
preferable if I were now to put the
Question. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft International Development
Association (Fifteenth Replenishment) Order
2008. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft International Development
Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order
2008.—[Mr.
Malik.] Committee
rose at fourteen minutes past Three
o’clock.
| 
