§ Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The implications for civil liberties and the rule of law of policing operations connected with the current mining dispute.In seeking this debate it is not my intention to attack the police force. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Despite what Conservative Members are suggesting, my relationship with the police is extremely good. I am sure that the House will realise their needs and also their difficulties. It is in the interests of all concerned—the police, the pickets, the general public and the House — that the issues involved should be aired before we break for the recess.As I said before, and as the Leader of the House said on Thursday, after all, when it is all over we have "to live together again". The local police have said the same thing to some of my constituents and to some of the pickets. Over the weekend I have had the opportunity to discuss this problem at my surgery, at a family wedding, where most of the people were miners and their families, and all were extremely concerned, with my colleagues over a dinner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—this is because of the urgency of the debate — and also with the legal adviser to the Yorkshire area of the National Union of Mineworkers. Not all the comments were bad. There were also comments on the good nature of many members of the police force. However, what was said emphasised the need, and the urgency, for a debate.
I quote one incident to illustrate this. The deaconess of the church to which I belong complained to me about the treatment of her son, who works not in the mining industry but in British Rail. On three occasions recently he has been stopped and on one occasion was taken out of his car. Not only was his car searched, but he was bodily searched.
Therefore, I stress the urgency of the need for a debate. In recent weeks my right hon. and hon. Friends have had numerous complaints from constituents, as I am sure Conservative Members have had. These complaints do not come only from those working in the mining industry. There is great public concern, and for these reasons I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The implications for civil liberties and the rule of law of policing operations connected with the current mining dispute.I am satisfied that the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is one that is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 10.Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
§ The leave of the House having been given—
§ Mr. SpeakerUnder Standing Order No. 10, the motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.
§ Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that under Standing Order No. 10 you are under no obligation, either today or on the previous occasions when this matter has been raised, to declare your reasons for deciding one way or another. However, I ask for some clarification about how this Standing Order operates. You will remember that on several occasions in the past two weeks you have refused similar applications, but on the intimation that on this occasion the application had the support of the Opposition Front Bench it seems to have led to a different decision.
In the interests of Back Benchers, which you have rightly sought to protect since you became Speaker, can you make it clear that there is no difference between an hon. Member seeking the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 with the support of his Front Bench and another hon. Member making a similar application without that support?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Member is in fact seeking to ask me to give reasons for my decision. He is right in saying that I seek to defend the interests of Back Benchers. I hope he will note that this application under Standing Order No. 10 was by a Back Bencher.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that any point of order can arise on what I have just said.
§ Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help the House, following your ruling, by saying whether tomorrow's debate, since it will be on the Adjournment of the House, will be a narrow or a wide one? In other words, will it be limited to the important issues raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), or will it be widened to include more primary issues about the mining dispute itself?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe motion will be on the Standing Order No. 10 application which I have just granted.
§ Mr. MarlowOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are saying how wide the debate might be. Will it be 26 possible to deal with the issue that the Labour party has brought this matter forward as a means of undermining the credibility of the police because the Opposition have no policies——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This debate will take place tomorrow and not now, please.
§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your decision about tomorrow's business means, of course, that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, which was scheduled for prime time tomorrow, beginning at 3.30 pm, will, unless certain other changes are made, not begin until after 7 o'clock. I hope very much that it will be possible for the Leader of the House to make a statement about the rearrangement of the business for tomorrow.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but the plan must be that the precedence that will be given to the debate on the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 means that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will start that much later.
§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not want to take any further points of order on my ruling on the Standing Order No. 10 application. Does the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) wish to raise a different matter?
§ Mr. PowellIt is an important matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that the hon. Gentleman will reserve his comments until tomorrow.
§ Mr. PowellI am not commenting about that. I want to comment only on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that the House wishes—certainly I do not—to hear any more points of order on my ruling upon the Standing Order No. 10 application, which I have granted.