§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House say in response to my question that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to make a statement at this stage on the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. despite the fact that Ministers are accountable to the House. I have the lobby briefing from No. 10, which states:
Downing Street said the Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon would make a statement to the House of Commons today on the Intelligence and Security Committee report on the lead-up to the Iraq war.That directly contradicts the Leader of House's response of a few moments ago. Have you received any indication from Downing street or the Secretary of State for Defence that a statement will be made? Why were we not forewarned?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For clarification, are you saying that you have received no requests from the Secretary of State for Defence for the opportunity to make a statement specifically on the Intelligence and Security Committee report? Otherwise, it would imply that the Secretary of State would try to do what he attempted the other day, when you correctly stopped him, and subsume a statement in a debate. Such matters should be kept properly separate. We must not allow them to be merged for the convenience of the Secretary of State or anyone else, must we? Can you clarify the exact position?
§ Mr. SpeakerLet me clarify the position as far as I know it. I am not responsible for ministerial statements; they are a matter for Ministers. I have received no notification of any statement from the Secretary of State for Defence. However, we are about to hold a debate on the Adjournment of the House. If the Secretary of State is in order, he will be able to say what he wants. When he was not in order the other day, I stopped him. If other hon. Members are out of order, I shall not be long in telling them so.
§ The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me make it clear what I said. In recent months, the Defence Secretary has made more statements to the House and been more accountable for the war in Iraq than any Defence Secretary in similar circumstances in parliamentary history. He will appear immediately after points of order, as the Opposition know. I do not know how the Defence Secretary could be more accountable to the House.
§ Mr. ForthFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that the Foreign Secretary has already made a statement to television cameras and not to the House, were the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement, it would enable hon. Members to question him properly under your guidance. However, if he decides to attempt to make a 487 statement in the guise of a speech in a debate, it is up to him whether he accepts interventions. That undermines one of the important processes of the House whereby we hold Ministers to account. They cannot duck a statement because it takes place under your guidance, but if they are making a speech, they can refuse interventions.
§ Mr. SpeakerThese are the rules of the House, which the right hon. Gentleman knows. I think that he is clear about what I am saying—any hon. Member who is in order when speaking during the debate, whether the Secretary of State or a Back-Bench Member, even the newest Back Bencher, will be allowed to continue.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned interventions. It is up to individual Members' discretion to decide whether to take interventions. Although that may be a problem, provided that all hon. Members who are called are in order during the business before us, they will be able to speak. Those are the rules that the House has given me.
I do not wish to prolong the matter because hon. Members know that there is a 12-minute limit on speeches for Back-Bench Members. We are in danger of squeezing out a Back Bencher.
§ Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that today's debate is about homeland defence? It has been much sought because we have not held a ring-fenced debate on the subject. If we trespass into international affairs, it will be open season and we shall have another general foreign affairs and defence debate.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is a debate on the Adjournment, entitled "Defence in the United Kingdom". Hon. Members can read the Order Paper. It is a while since I have looked at it because I have been so busy taking points of order.
§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We look to you to protect not only our interests but the good processes of the House. Is it not normal practice that when a ministerial statement is anticipated—we have been led to believe that one is forthcoming from the Secretary of State for Defence—hon. Members should receive proper prior notification so that they can attend? Cannot the Secretary of State make clear now from the Dispatch Box the time when he will make a statement—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order. Clearly, the Speaker has not led anyone to believe that there will be a statement. That is the important thing.