§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
10.14 pm§ Madam SpeakerThe Question is—
§ Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will the Leader of the House make the necessary arrangements for a statement to be made on the implications of the coroner's court's decision on the friendly fire death issue today? This matter has aroused considerable concern within the House and elsewhere. The legal implications and the concern over the almost unparalleled decision of unlawful killing requires that a statement be made at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, I ask you to require the Leader of the House to make the necessary arrangements in order that that can be achieved.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the deep concern that undoubtedly exists over the unlawful killing of the service man in question, would it be possible for the Secretary of State for Defence to make an early statement bearing in mind two points: the deep disquiet over what has occurred and the decision of the court and, secondly, the need for a statement to be made before the House goes into recess. It would be wrong for the House to go into recess next week without a statement being made, bearing in mind that defence questions will not be answered until 2 June.
§ Madam SpeakerAs the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) made the point, points of order are to me. Furthermore, there is to be the spring Adjournment debate tomorrow, when various matters can be raised. On Friday we have Adjournment debates. The sub judice rule no longer applies on this matter, as hon. Members now know. It is no longer a matter for the Chair. It is now a matter for the Government. Undoubtedly those who are sitting on the Treasury Bench have heard the wishes expressed in the House. We must now proceed with our business, the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill money resolution.
§ Mr. O'NeillFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling and interpretation, but as this matter is the responsibility of the Government and not just—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Points of order are to me. I have made it abundantly clear that points of order are to the Chair. I have answered; it is no longer a matter for the Chair. The sub judice rule no longer applies. This is not a matter for debate. I have made the point that Government Ministers are here and will have heard the wishes expressed from the Dispatch Box. It must now be left to the Government. We are not going to enter into a debate on the question. The Question is as on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I must be allowed to propose the Question. The Question is as on the Order Paper. We shall now take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
§ Mr. MorrisFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I am not challenging what you have already told the House, but is not it usual in these circumstances for the Leader of the House to respond, in accordance with the wishes of the Chair?
§ Madam SpeakerIn my experience, it is not usual for a Minister to respond, simply because our practice is that points of order are to the Chair, not to any Minister of the Crown. I have answered as I can only answer—that the sub judice rule no longer applies and it is for the Government, as some stage, to determine what they will do; but 10.20 pm is not the appropriate time.
§
Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill, it is expedient to authorize—
-
c117
- CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL 49 words