Sir Peter Emery: We are not jeering from the sidelines; we are condemning the Minister for having had the advice since September and doing nothing about it for England. If he is thinks that his logic about having to have uniformity for the whole of the United Kingdom makes any sense for my constituents in Devon, he is talking nonsense. Will he therefore give this country an undertaking that, if a similar...
Sir Peter Emery: I realise that one must examine the Minister's statement carefully, but does she accept that there is little doubt that overall it is bad news for local government? It contains nothing to correct the particularly bad treatment meted out over the past two years to rural local authorities, which it appears will have to continue to suffer. Will the Minister look specifically at the guarantees...
Sir Peter Emery: The Secretary of State makes a great point of saying that the Americans are happy about what is happening. However, only last week in Amsterdam, 12 Members of Congress from both the Republican and Democrat parties made it clear that they were worried about their role if Western European Union became part of the European Union. Lord Robertson spoke and made it clear that many worries had to be...
Sir Peter Emery: It used to be the custom in these debates to refer to the previous Member's speech. I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on many things that he said—I do not agree with them—but I very much encourage him in his intention to vote against the Government. Such views are most admirable. The first part of the Gracious Speech to which I shall refer is...
Sir Peter Emery: Before my hon. Friend leaves this subject, will he comment on the great danger that if the Western European Union is taken over by the European Union, four EU nations which are neutralist and not members of NATO will be making military decisions and will have some say about military decisions taken by the WEU and, therefore, by NATO?
Sir Peter Emery: I had no intention of speaking in these debates until I heard the unbelievably weak case put by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. Why oppose the measure? If the Government want to carry out reform and they want to be trusted, why not put the measure into law? I apologise to Members of the other place because we may be preventing them from dealing with the Bill when they had...
Sir Peter Emery: One learns that it is the French intention to attend the meeting in Brussels and give way on the understanding that certain further restrictions are placed on British beef. If that is the case—it seems absolutely unreasonable to me—what steps are the Government preparing to take to deal with that problem?
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I tried to give you notice via the Clerks of this point of order, which arises on a simple matter. Can you confirm that, as "Erskine May" says in several places, if, during a debate in the House that has not exceeded its limited time—when there is still plenty of time for the debate to continue—a Member who has previously spoken rises to speak again,...
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is most helpful to have had your ruling, but surely it is the House that makes the decision, not the Chair.
Sir Peter Emery: May I make it quite clear that I had no intention of speaking for two hours?
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Will he give—
Sir Peter Emery: By leave of the House—
Sir Peter Emery: By leave of the House—
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is naughty of me to intervene when I have just spoken, but I want to reinforce his point. The proceedings of many of those Select Committees are taped and are therefore available for any television station in the country to broadcast within hours of their taking place, so why should they be prevented from being published on the internet?...
Sir Peter Emery: It is with great pleasure that I say that the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege has done a very thorough and complete job and we would all wish to thank hon. Members on both sides for their work. I did not entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when he said that he thought that privilege had been a mishmash. That was not so, and nor is it so now....
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend should not think that I have not looked at paragraphs 202 and 200, which are the key to the recommendations. However, as it is so difficult to describe the rule, its interpretation will rest with Madam Speaker. I urge her to be—I will not say more modern as that is perhaps unkind—slightly more pliable in her application of that rule. Perhaps we might even go further....
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, although I do not want to enter into debate on that subject as it might seem that I am criticising the Chair, which I would not do at any time.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point. The only counter to it is that the media are limited in that they cannot make any comment that is prejudicial to a trial. Perhaps we should consider that point more than we have in the past, to examine how prejudicial any possible debate in the House could be. If a Member were to make a speech that appeared to the Chair to be prejudicial, we...
Sir Peter Emery: I understand that. However, it seems to me that the suggestions in the recommendations go further than the implications made by my right hon. and learned Friend. I want to make certain that any condemnation should be equal on both sides. That has not been true so far. I feel strongly about that matter. It is strange, but the interests of protection of privilege go to all aspects of...
