That, at this days sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to the Speakers Committee on the Search of Offices on the Parliamentary Estate not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
Since this issue first arose, the House has had a series of occasions on which right hon. and hon. Members have had an opportunity to raise important matters of concern. Last Wednesday, 13 Members took the opportunity to raise points of order on this matter for nearly 20 minutes. Last Thursday, 20 Members raised points on this matter during the 50 minutes devoted to business questions. The Home Secretary then made a statement on the matter and answered questions from 33 Members for a further hour. There was then a five-hour debate on home affairs, during which five Members also took the opportunity to raise their concerns. It is against that context that the business of the House motion allows three hours for us to debate this issue this afternoon.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman explain what business, Government or otherwise, he is seeking to protect by moving this motion? We have had the thinnest Queens Speech for years and years, there is no pressing Government business and we have an extremely long recess. All we are asking is that ideally we should continue debating the main subject of the day until 10 oclock this evening. Are the Government prepared to allow any controversial subject to be discussed on the Floor of the House any more?
Chris Bryant: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the choice of debates on each day following the Queens Speech is up to the Opposition. It is the Opposition who have chosen that this afternoon we should debate employment, universities and skills, and housing. If we are protecting business this afternoon, it is that debate, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues wanted. If the motion is agreed to, and then the 10 pm business of the House motion is agreed to later this evening, todays business will be able to continue past the moment of interruption at 10 pm. I believe that we will be allowing adequate debate of this important matter this afternoon, and I commend the motion
Mr. Hogg: The Deputy Leader of the House will remember that on 12 November we had a similar kind of debate on regional Select Committees. He criticised us for not tabling amendments on the timing, saying that if we did he would give them very serious consideration. Why has he not acceded to the proposals that we have put forward today, which were a test of his good faith?
Chris Bryant: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not want to question my good faith. In response to him, I should say that I and the Government have considered at length whether the amount of time is appropriate. I know that he has tabled an amendment, and I am sure that he wants to make sure that it is debated and voted on. All I would say is that I commend to the House the business motion as it is on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): I have to say to the Deputy Leader of the House that not only is the amount of time that the Government are giving for the debate of this motion totally inadequate, but his defence of that business motion was totally inadequate. I am very impressed by the revision and homework that he has done in finding out how many people spoke in the home affairs debate and during the Home Secretarys statement last week, for example, but the business before the House today is about the establishment of the Speakers Committee and the putting into place of the wishes that Mr. Speaker expressed in his statement to the House last Wednesday.
The motion before the House today was not on the Order Paper last Thursday, so people were not able to make contributions in relation to the motion that we wish to debate today. In future, the hon. Gentleman should go away and do his homework rather better before he comes to defend an inadequate motion such as this. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has already pointed out that it was the Deputy Leader of the House himself who, on 12 November, indicated to the Opposition that if we felt that any business motion was inadequate, we should amend it. He said:
I am sure that we would have listened to what they had to say.[ Official Report, 12 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 778.]
He now has the chance to put his words into practiceto listen to what has been said. This is an inadequate amount of time to discuss the Speakers Committee on parliamentary privilege and on the seizure of papers from the office of a Member of this House, which interrupted the ability of that Member to do his job on behalf of his constituents. The Deputy Leader of the House should think again, put into place what he said on 12 November, accept the amendments and give us proper time for debate.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): Not only do we have today, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, the beginning of a parliamentary year with the lightest Government programme that there has been since this Government were in office, and not only do we have a proposal for this House to sit for fewer days this year than at any time, certainly since 1979 and possibly since the last war, but yet again the Government cannot resist the temptation to try to prevent the House of Commons from debating, in time that is adequate for all voices to be reflected, an issue of great importance. If we cannot have the time to debate whether police can come into this building, when they can do so, on whose authority, what they can take and whether they can interfere with our constituents links with their Members of Parliament, it is a very sorry state of affairs and a very sorry House of Commons.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will support the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) because we should have time to debate the procedures of this place and to give this matter proper consideration, and because there is plenty of time to debate the Queens Speech, the VAT reforms and any other matters before Christmas. This is about the Government trying to clamp down on the House of Commons having its say, and I hope that colleagues in all parts of the House will oppose them. This is not the sort of business that we elect Government to dothey should take their hands off and let the House of Commons do its job properly.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it help the Deputy Leader of the House for you to ask MPs who want to speak in the main debate to stand so that he can see how many people want to speak?
I oppose the Governments business motion. The purpose of the amendments is to enable this House to have a proper discussion. What is currently proposed is that the House should have a debate of three hours in total that is on both the business motion and the substantive motion, and that should we decide to vote on the business motion that time will come out of the time allowed for the substantive motion. I am saying to the House that that is profoundly unfair. In any event, the business motion is protected by the ability to move the closure. I am suggesting that the substantive motion should allow the House to debate for six hours. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is wholly correct when he says that this is the most urgent matter currently before the House.
I want to make a few very brief points, because other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. First, this is essentially a House of Commons matter. The Government
are seizing control of the programme in a way that many of us think is wholly wrong. Secondly, and differentlyI am now coming back to the point that I made in an intervention on the Deputy Leader of the Housewe had a not dissimilar debate on 12 November, and I remember that he intervened on me when I was speaking to oppose the business motion, and said: Why didnt you put down an amendment; if you had, wed have given it serious consideration? Well, we have put down an amendment, and they have not given it serious consideration. I am casting no personal aspersions on the hon. Gentleman, but this matter [ Interruption. ] The Solicitor-General should not get excited; it does not suit her. This is a matter that goes to the good faith of the Government, and if they do not respond, and respond positively, we will know where they stand on it.
Finallythis will take just a moment longergoing back to your statement of last Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, you said, in effect, three things: first, that you were going to appoint a special Committee of seven senior and experienced Members appointed by yourself; secondly, that the Speakers Committee was going to investigate the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure of the offices and papers of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green); and lastly, that the Committee was to report as rapidly as possible. Those were the three elements in your statement. When we go to the business motion and the substantive motion, we find that each of those three requirements has been frustrated by the Government. To start off with, it is not going to be seven senior and experienced Members appointed by yourself. There is no reference to seniority or experience, but there is reference to the Committee having a Government majority. That was not in your statement. We are entitled to have the time to ask why you are being frustrated in that manner.
The second, and quite different, point is this: when we look at the terms of the substantive motion, we do not find anything about looking at the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure. We find only talk about future rules and processes. We are entitled to know, and we need time to debate, why it is that the Government are again frustrating your wishes in this regard.
Lastly, and by no means least importantly, you said that you wanted this Committee to report as soon as possible. That is made impossible by the motion, because it provides that the first thing that the Committee does is adjourn. We are entitled to know why the Government are doing that. Well, I can tell you; they have four principleswe have heard a lot about the four principles in this Houseand they are something like this: concealment, duplicity, whitewash and cover-up. We have a right to debate the matter fully and properly in this House, and I hope that this House will reject the business motion as unworthy of democracy.
Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South) (Lab):
Unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I want to proceed quickly and not talk this matter out. I wish to make two brief points. First, if we went straight to the debate now, and even if the Front Benchers took up an hour, there would be time for at least 14 Back-Bench Members to make a contribution and to reflect every shade of opinion in this House. Secondly, which other citizen of this country
who was subject to potential criminal investigation and prosecution would be entitled to have a debate in this Houseone which I fear might well be prejudicial to those hearings?
Mr. Speaker, in the face of the concern expressed, you were right to hold a debate, but we have to be careful to ensure that that debate is limited while proceedings may be going on, so as not to prejudice any possible trial. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to bear that in mind.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): The intensity of feeling on this issue is demonstrated clearly by the number of Members who are present today. Let us try to think of the last time when the House has been packed at 2.48 on a Monday afternoon. That clearly shows why we believe that having three hours to debate this matter is inadequate.
When you made your ruling, Mr. Speaker, a number of points of order were raised, which you answered in some cases by saying that there would be a debate during which people could bring up the matters in question. By limiting the amount of time we have for debate, and given the number of Back Benchers who want to get in, the vast majority of us will simply be denied an opportunity to speak in the main debate.
The Deputy Leader of the House said that it was up to usthe Oppositionwhat matters were to be debated today, in the Queens Speech. Then I ask him to give us that opportunity, and ask us what we want to debate today. He will find that we wish to debate the issue that is before us until 10 pm.
Mr. Field: Precisely. Given that our constituents, like us, think that the matters that we wish to discuss are important, I would make a plea to them that they continue to watch and listen. However, I guess that most of them would think that, however important the matters might be, we could make our points within three hours. It is not necessarily the number of Members who speak, but how we vote that people will judge us by. I make this plea to all hon. Members: to us, this debate is high drama; to most of our constituents, it has already descended into farce. I make a plea that we get on with the business of the House and debate the substantive motions, including the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), so that we can get to the guts of the matter and not continue to suffer from this pantomime.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con):
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I am both saddened and surprised at the attitude that he has taken. I was freely mixing with a range of people in my constituency over the weekend
and they view this matter as one of considerable constitutional importance. They also believe that the statement that you made to the House last week, Mr. Speaker, Sir, following the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), should have a proper amount of time to be debated.
In opposing the motion, let me say this to the House. Even in Zimbabwe, on 26 January 1982, when Mr. Mugabes police wished to arrest a Member of the Zimbabwean Parliament, they did not, could not and would not enter the House of Commons in Harare. If they were not prepared to enter because of the constitutional rights and privileges of Members of Parliament there, why should the police enter this House without a warrant and confiscate an hon. Members belongings?
Your statement, Mr. Speaker, was filled with a number of matters that I believe the House would wish to debate in detail, not least the one that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned: your indication that you, and not the Government, would appoint seven Members, and that there would not necessarily be a Government majority. That was absolutely right. The request that you made in your statement has not been granted by the Government.
Let me say this to the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. When the Prime Minister took over from his predecessor, he said that he wished to restore to this House an element of independence and integrity. Are the Government doing that in todays motion? I say that they are not. This motion should be opposed.
Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab): This debate is a massive smokescreen. I am probably one of the busiest MPsI am not saying that I am the busiest, but I am one of themand I receive hundreds of letters and e-mails each week, yet only one constituent has raised the issue with me. This is self-indulgence on the part of parliamentarians who seek privilege over everybody else. If people commit wrongs, they are entitled to be found out.
It is clear to me that three hours is adequate for the issues to be determined. There will be outstanding issues at the end of the debate, but the essential question is: what is all this about? It is about an Opposition who do not want to talk about the economy or all the other things involved in the inquiry, and who do not want to tell us what they know about illegalities in the civil service. That is what this is about and it is what we will talk about in due course.
For now, however, all we need is sufficient time to look further into the issues that presented themselves to you, Mr. Speaker. One issue was perfectly clear to methat two warrants were issued against two establishments and a technicality ensured that a warrant was not issued in respect of the House of Commons. For my part, I cannot see a difference, and three hours is quite long enough to debate no difference.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|