Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
10:30 am
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
First, may I apologise for two things by way of preliminary? I have not served on a Committee as a Back Bencher for more than 20 years, and I have not been on a Committee for more than 12, so it is at least possible that I shall commit the occasional solecism. I apologise for that in advance.
Secondly, I have moved a manuscript amendment. I appreciate what you have just said about amendments, Mr. Bercow, and, with respect, I entirely agree that notice needs to be given. However, this is a somewhat exceptional situation. As you will see, the amendment would slip the whole thing back by an hour on Thursday afternoon and slip the start time back by an hour this afternoon. The reason for that is that it seems likely that there will be a statement on post offices on Thursday. That is a matter of extreme importance to many Members, particularly rural Members. I imagine that the constituents of Buckingham are pretty concerned about what will happen to the post offices in their constituency, Mr. Bercow, and they would be very sad indeed if their representative could not express their views on that occasion. I am sure that that is also true of those in other constituencies, including Sleaford and North Hykeham. I therefore respectfully suggest that it is important that members of the Committee can be present at the statement.
As far as this afternoon is concerned, you will have heard Mr. Speaker reply to a point of order yesterday, Mr. Bercow, on the report of the Iraq study group. As there was in business questions last Thursday, there was pressure for the Prime Minister to make a statement. Mr. Speaker indicated obliquely that he might—I can put it no stronger than that—be favourably disposed to an urgent question. I can tell you, Mr. Bercow, that there is an urgent question before him for his consideration.