HC Deb 19 July 1972 vol 841 cc624-30
Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) asked leave to put down a Private Notice Question today. He said that if I did not allow the Private Notice Question he would move a Standing Order No. 9 application. That is a form of pressure on the Chair which is very undesirable. Under the Standing Order I should be entitled not to allow him to make his application. As this is the first time it has happened, however, I propose to allow him to make the application, but he must restrict himself strictly to the question why his Motion should have precedence over the business of the day.

Mr. McMaster

I realise, Mr. Speaker, as you have just said, that it would be totally wrong for me to seek in any way to exert pressure. I informed you quite clearly and in writing that, whether or not leave was given to ask a Private Notice Question, I would seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. If I have given an erroneous impression I should like to correct it and make it quite clear that I gave notice of my application whether or not leave was given for the Private Notice Question.

I seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss the present situation in Northern Ireland in view especially of the meeting of leading members of the IRA with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others at a time when a criminal and illegal body led by these men is waging war against the citizens of Northern Ireland and against the security forces of the Crown with the utmost ferocity and viciousness and with a complete disregard for the criminal law of this country. I urge you to grant this application, Mr. Speakers on the ground, first, that it is specific. It is not denied—and I am grateful for the help given to me by the Leader of the Opposition on this matter—that such a meeting was held yesterday at the same time as a soldier of the Crown was murdered in the Lenadoon Estate in Northern Ireland. Kingsman James Jones was shot dead and other soldiers have since been wounded in Northern Ireland.

I suggest that the matter is important. The violence in Northern Ireland is continuing and escalating. Death and destruction are occurring every day. No day passes in Ulster without further brutal murders being added to the existing long list. Citizens are being shot and blown to pieces, traps are being deliberately set and property is being burnt and destroyed. The impression has been given that shooting and murder pay, otherwise nobody would wish to fly these men to England to have discussions with them.

I suggest the matter is urgent because the position of the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland—I remind the House that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and a responsibility of this House of Commons—is being seriously undermined. The citizens of Northern Ireland feel betrayed to find that Members of this House are not only discussing with the IRA the future of Northern Ireland but are discussing it with murderers, with men who are sworn enemies of the—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must not go into the merits. He must make his argument on the ground that the House should have another debate on Northern Ireland in precedence over the business already fixed for today and tomorrow.

Mr. McMaster

I wish to make the application on the ground that, because of the meeting held yesterday and the fact that these members of the IRA—wanted men who, by their own admission, are implicated in this continuing series of murders—flew to England, they are escaping the ordinary processes of law since they are not answering for crimes to which they have been parties. This is contrary to the rule of law and is leading to a complete state of anarchy in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harold Wilson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope I may be allowed to say this before you give your ruling. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) fairly referred to the fact that he and I had a conversation. The reason I intervened with the hon. Gentleman was that I heard about his intentions on this subject and I presumed that he would have to prove Government responsibility. I have never heard of a Standing Order No. 9 application being proposed in respect of any matter over which there is not Government responsibility. Since he would have to prove such governmental responsibility, he would have to prove Government compliance. I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have been moved to take this action by Press reports— reports which are totally inaccurate—that the men concerned were flown over in a Royal Air Force plane. Just over an hour ago I gave instructions for a categorical denial of that statement to be issued to two London evening newspapers, at the same time making clear that the Government were not involved in this visit in any way, in regard to either transport or customs and immigration clearance. There was no invocation of Government aid. In view of the Press reports, it is only fair to make that clear.

Since the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter, it is only fair to make it clear that the Government, who have their difficulties in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, were not involved in any way. To that extent, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge my motives—and he referred to the death of one of my constituents this morning—I shall be happy to deal with it on any other appropriate occasion. However, I should be surprised to hear that we can deal with matters affecting the conduct of Members when there is no Government responsibility.

Mr. Speaker

As I have frequently pointed out to the House, this is a purely procedural decision for the Chair. I understand the strong feelings which exist about a very serious situation. What I have to decide is simply whether this application should take precedence over the business which has already been set down for today or tomorrow. I cannot give the application that precedence.

Mr. Powell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to the words which you addressed to the House immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) submitted his application under Standing Order No. 9? It might appear from what you said that the right of a Member under Standing Order No. 9 to put forward such a Motion was limited, or could be limited, by what he had or had not privately said to the Chair. I cannot believe that that can be so or that it could have been the intention of what you said. Might I respectfully submit that, after you have carefully considered what you have said this afternoon, you might wish to clear up the situation so that the situation in regard to the Standing Order and the rights of Members under it is left in no doubt?

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was seeking to make clear the situation. The Standing Order says: A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Mr. Speaker by twelve o'clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour. I was simply indicating—and in view of what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, I take this as a hypothetical case—that if a Member says to Mr. Speaker "If you do not allow my Private Notice Question I shall when the time comes seek to move a Standing Order No. 9 application", I shall not regard that as "notice" under the terms of the Standing Order, and I will not accept it as such in future.

Mr. Pardoe

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have couched two letters in a somewhat similar vein to you. If a Member writes a letter to you asking for permission to table a Private Notice Question, may he not then as a matter of courtesy say, "Depending on the result of that request, I may seek to raise the matter by a Standing Order No. 9 application"? I hope that this course is not now to be ruled out.

Mr. Speaker

I would not rule out the possibility of an hon. Member seeking to make an application for permission to move the Adjournment of the House in view of an answer given to a Private Notice Question. But the Chair must be protected from any kind of pressure on the lines that if Mr. Speaker does not allow a Private Notice Question there will be a Standing Order No. 9 application. Sometimes the threat is couched in terms which are not very attractive to the Chair.

Mr. Heffer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate the point that Mr. Speaker should not be subjected to pressure, but surely a Member must take whatever course is open to him to pursue a particular matter. I remember approaching you about a Private Notice Question, and you rightly said that it would not be allowed. I then said that I would try to raise the matter by way of a Standing Order No. 9 application. This would appear to be a reasonable thing for any Member of the House to do. Surely it is our job and, indeed, our responsibility if we think there is a matter of the gravest importance to be raised in the House, to pursue the matter in this way. I feel that your original remarks could have given the impression, though I am sure you did not mean to give it, that Members ought not to pursue what for a long time has been a legitimate practice.

Mr. Speaker

I have been very careful in view of what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, to put this forward as a hypothetical case, but I repeat that I am not prepared for an hon. Member to say to me "If you do not allow a Private Notice Question, I shall seek to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9."The Chair should not be put under this kind of threat. It is not desirable.

Mr. Buchan

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us will feel a little happier about your last remarks, but in regard to the previous replies to points of order I think you should reconsider the matter. This sort of situation is seen by back-benchers as an alternative way in which to proceed. If we regard a matter to be of such importance that it should be raised as quickly as possible in the House, then as a matter of courtesy we tend to say in a letter that if we cannot raise the matter in this way we shall seek to raise it in an alternative way. I cannot see how that is bringing undue pressure on the Speaker. Indeed, I do not know of any pressure ever succeeding on a Speaker. He is the irremovable force and back benchers are certainly not irresistible objects. We should like you to consider the position and to give a more formal definition of the situation; otherwise we feel that real difficulties will arise for back benchers.

Mr. Kaufman

May I put a further point to you, Mr. Speaker? Of course, any hon. Member who sought to put pressure on you in this way would be behaving a manner deleterious to his own prospects. But there is a problem which arises and which I should like to put to you. If an hon. Member comes to your office at 10 a.m. wishing to lodge notice of a Private Notice Question, he will not hear your ruling or decision until some time after noon. He may have it in mind that if he fails to secure your permission to ask a Private Notice Question he would like to attempt to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 in order to air the matter that he wishes to raise. But two hours have intervened. During those two hours possibly another hon. Member with the same subject in mind has given notice not that he wishes to ask a Private Notice Question but that he intends to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9. In such a case the hon. Member who first had the subject in mind, because he has had to wait two hours for your decision, loses his opportunity to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9 because of your ruling on precedence in Standing Order No. 9 cases; namely, that the hon. Member who first gives notice has the right to raise the matter.

Mr. George Cunningham

May I add one more thought for your consideration, Mr. Speaker? May I remind you of an occasion six or nine months ago when I failed in an application under Standing Order No. 9 and in the course of your ruling you advised me that had I asked for a Private Notice Question very likely you would have granted it. On that basis therefore, on another occasion one would normally ask you for a Private Notice Question first. However in the light of what you said earlier, one would feel impeded from doing that. I hope that you will take that point into account.

Mr. Speaker

I will take all these matters into account and, if necessary, say something further about it on a later occasion. However, I repeat that the Chair cannot submit to the threat that if a Private Notice Question is not allowed a Standing Order No. 9 application will be moved which would be more trouble for the Chair. I cannot approve of that approach.