§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today, unprecedented—indeed, historic—action has been taken by NATO war planes, which have shot down four Bosnian Serb war planes. That action, although authorised by resolutions 781 and 816 of the Security Council of the United Nations, nevertheless represents a serious escalation of events in Bosnia. It has already apparently resulted in an increased bombardment of Tuzla by Bosnian Serbs. We need to know whether the NATO ultimatum will be extended in any way to Tuzla or anywhere else, and whether these events are to be considered by the United Nations Security Council.
The Foreign Secretary has made a statement in Athens; the Secretary of State for Defence has made a statement in Leicester. Is it not unacceptable that the House of Commons has had no opportunity to hear a statement, and to question Ministers on these issues—especially when we bear in mind that Ministers are answering questions on these matters in the House of Lords? Have you, Madam 655 Speaker, had any indication of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a statement about these important events?
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, as soon as the news of the shooting down of the aircraft came through, I contacted your office seeking an opportunity to raise the matter this afternoon. Subsequently, I heard the Prime Minister speaking from Washington, the Foreign Secretary speaking from Athens—that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—and the Secretary of State for Defence speaking on television. I have also been in another place, and heard a statement volunteered by Ministers. We have, however, heard nothing in the House of Commons.
Every single soldier serving in Bosnia, and every civilian, is represented by a Member of Parliament. The House of Commons, however, has been denied the opportunity to hear a statement by the Government, allowing us to cross-examine them about the escalation of events, the risk to our aid convoys—which have been stopped today because of that risk—the danger to troops and their families, who might also be at risk, and, indeed, the international aspects of the matter.
This is not an affront to the House of Commons, but a denial of the rights of those who look to the House of Commons when seeking explanations from Ministers about actions that may affect their lives and welfare and the future peace of Europe and the world. In the light of that, Madam Speaker, would you be prepared to accept tomorrow a Standing Order No. 20 application that I would have tried to move today, had I not failed to do what must be done in the first instance—that is, obtain a statement by private notice?
§ Madam SpeakerAs hon. Members fully appreciate, a private notice question has to meet certain criteria, one of which is a change of policy. In this case, there has been no change of policy; the decision was a logical consequence of existing policy. If a Minister from the Foreign Office or from the Ministry of Defence, however, had wished to make a statement, that of course would now be taking place. [Interruption.] Order. I have had no request from a Minister to make a statement. I remind hon. Members that there are Foreign Office questions on Wednesday. I shall consider the Standing Order No. 20 request that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) wants to submit to me tomorrow, as I always do, with all seriousness.
§ Mr. BennFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Your statement that a private notice question has to be about a change of policy is an absolute innovation and is not to be found anywhere in "Erskine May", which states that the question must be definite, urgent and a matter of public importance. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is an alliance of which we are a member and it is the first time that NATO troops have ever been in action since 1948. That, dare I say so, even falls within the definition of a change of policy. I urge you to consider carefully the statement that you have just made.
§ Madam SpeakerAs the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I do not have to give reasons for my decisions in the House. I have always attempted to be helpful in the House 656 by giving my attitudes and some of my reasons. Lack of a change of policy was simply one of the reasons for my decision. I have to consider many others and I have done so today. I realise, as do all hon. Members, the seriousness of the matter. If a Minister wished to come to the Dispatch Box, of course we would have a statement from him.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In your infinite wisdom, have you been able to detect the slightest improvement in the length of questions—or speeches—from Front or Back Benchers at Question Time? The position seems just as bad as it was.
§ Madam SpeakerI must say to the hon. Lady that I am agreeably surprised. I appreciate the co-operation of hon. Members, but I want us to do better tomorrow and from then on.
§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker, that arises from the Minister's reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). You will remember that the Minister, who appeared to be making a statement, seemed to contradict what he had told the House on Friday. More important, he appeared to speak in contrast to what the Foreign Secretary told not the House, but the British Broadcasting Corporation, on the link with the arms trade—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not concerned with the content of ministerial replies, although, to some extent, I am concerned with their length. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I asked the Minister to cut his reply short. Will he now make the point of order that is for me? Content and argument are not subjects for me. Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order about breaches of procedure?
§ Mr. ClarkeI am grateful, Madam Speaker. Tomorrow afternoon, we have an extremely important debate—initiated, to its credit, by the Liberal party. The House is entitled to hear from the Foreign Secretary in that debate. Has he requested the opportunity to make an important statement?
§ Madam SpeakerNo.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. No doubt you will know that there is horror and shock in the civilised world, certainly in the House of Commons, over the massacre at Hebron in which about 50 people were gunned down while they were worshipping. That was one of the most terrible crimes that has been committed in recent months. Will there be an opportunity for the questions on the middle east to be taken after Foreign Office questions on Wednesday?
There will, I trust, be an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to contribute and to make clear that not only Britain, through the diplomatic channels, but Parliament itself wants to express in the clearest possible terms its horror over what has happened and its sympathy with the relatives of the bereaved.
§ Madam SpeakerIt would set a bad precedent were I to anticipate questions that may be on the Order Paper in two days' time. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the 657 Procedure Committee, so he should be aware that he should wait until Wednesday to see how the questions fall in place.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you are aware that the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the Secretary of State for Employment, and the right hon. Member for Bexley and Old Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the Father of the House, are among 11 hon. Members who are in breach of a resolution carried by the House requiring them to provide information relating to Lloyd's in the Register of Members' Interests, which was published this morning? I wonder whether you are prepared to arrange a meeting with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests to give him your advice on how the House should now proceed in the light of the fact that 11 Members have decided that they should breach our resolution.
§ Madam SpeakerThis is a matter for the House as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Register was published this morning and it is now in the public domain for all Members to inspect.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Law Officers in the Government—in any Government—and in the House of Commons occupy a rather special position. Therefore, I ask whether you have had any request from the Law Officers to report to Parliament on the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade this morning at No. 1 Buckingham gate, to the effect that he was forced to indulge in some type of cover-up, and that undertakings that were apparently given to him in relation to the defence in the Matrix Churchill trial were not carried out by the Law Officers. Any matters relating to Law Officers surely should be a matter of a report to Parliament when it is a matter of principle, rather than waiting for the report of Lord Justice Scott.
§ Madam SpeakerI have not been informed by the Law Officers Department that anyone is seeking to make a statement, but, of course, the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has it been brought to your attention that, apart from the Members mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), neither the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) nor the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has completed any entry in the Register of Members' Interests, as they should have done?
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I do think that this to and fro about the Register of Members' Interests is quite unnecessary—a total waste of our time here. The Register is in the public domain. It is available to all Members as well as to those outside.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. You said that the requirement that information be placed in the Register is a matter for the Committee. That is so, but the basic authority for the 658 Committee to be established and conduct its business is the Chamber and those in the Chamber. As I understand it, there has been a concerted and co-ordinated attempt by members of Lloyd's to refuse to provide information to the House via the Register of Members' Interests. If that were the case, it would be unfair on those Members who have provided information fully and properly, but, if it is the case, I hope that if the Leader of the House hesitates about putting down a motion you will encourage him to do so to ensure that they are brought to book.
§ Madam SpeakerAs the hon. Gentleman knows, as a member of the Committee, it is a matter for the House as a whole—the House in its entirety.
§ Mr. BennOn a point of order, Madam Speaker. Reverting to the matter that I raised with you earlier, I was guided by my recollection that a request for a Standing Order No. 20 had to be given before 12 o'clock, but I refreshed myself of the Standing Orders and they say:
if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour. If the urgency is not so known he shall give notice as soonas possible. The urgency is created by the statement made in another place, where the Minister has gone into all sorts of aspects of the suspension of the aid programme and so on, and therefore it is, I submit, in order for you to accept a motion that I would now like to move, That the House do adjourn under Standing Order No. 20 in order to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the assent given by Her Majesty's Government to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to take military action in the former Yugoslavia.
§ Madam SpeakerI will not hear the hon. Gentleman's application now, as he has put it to me, but he would certainly not be out of order if he would like to submit it to me in writing at any time for tomorrow and I would certainly look at it seriously, as I have already indicated that I would.