Points of Order (Hansard, 17 March 2003)

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are strong rumours outside the House that after this afternoon's emergency Cabinet meeting the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary will seek to make a statement. Have you received any notice of that? If you do receive such notice, do you intend to interrupt the business or, because it is timetabled business, to take the statement at the end of the business?

§ Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
On the same point of order, Mr. Burnett?

§ Mr. Burnett
No, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
There may well be a statement later today. As to its timing, the first business today is a guillotine motion providing for the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill to be taken through all its stages today. If the House agrees to that motion, I think it would be wrong for me to decide to interrupt the subsequent proceedings on the Bill on my own authority. The effect of that would be to truncate those proceedings still further and to contradict the order that the House had just made. But it is of course possible for the House itself to conclude proceedings on the Bill earlier than the scheduled time of 10 pm if Members decide that that would be desirable.

§ Mr. Burnett
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With his usual courtesy, the Attorney-General has informed me of his written opinion on the legality of the actions that the Government may soon be taking, or authorising, in Iraq. Given the seriousness of the matter, an oral statement followed by questions would have been more appropriate. Will you prevail upon the Solicitor-General to attend any subsequent debate on 630 this matter to ensure that the Government's views on the legality of any action taken in Iraq may be challenged and debated?

§ Mr. Speaker
All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am sure that the Solicitor-General will have noted his comments.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On several occasions, the House has been promised a debate on the war before the shooting starts. Given that it appears as though the Americans are not depending on the element of surprise, the caveat about the safety of the troops does not apply. Given that the Leader of the House may not be in a position to redeem his commitment, is there a role for you in ensuring that the House debates the matter before any action starts?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not a matter for me; it is for the Leader of the House to make a business statement.

§ Mr. John Taylor (Solihull)
Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), Mr. Speaker. I want to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Solicitor-General, which you hoped that she would hear. It is of the greatest importance that the Law Officers should advise not only the Government but Parliament. Law Officers should be present to state the proper ruling.

§ Mr. Speaker
I believe that that is the purpose of making the Law Officers' advice available.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)
Further to the first point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the event of your breaking in on our proceedings, will the time for the statement and for questioning a Minister be added to that which the debate should have had? As you know, it has already been cruelly guillotined.

§ Mr. Speaker
Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at ease. I shall not break into the Northern Ireland business if the House decides to carry the first item of business.