TRANSPORT, NORTH-EAST AREA (ADJOURNMENT DEBATE) (Hansard, 21 February 1957)

§ Dame Irene Ward
On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Last night there was a rather prolonged debate on the affairs of the North-East. My attention has been directed to a statement made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) which appears in HANSARD. He said: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understood me. He was referring to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. His hon. Friends have expressed themselves on many occasions, especially the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). On every occasion they have pressed for a tunnel and opposed the bridge. That is the point. The discussion was about the provision of a tunnel or bridge across the Tyne.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central also said: Would he also convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that hon. Members from the North-East, with the hon. Members who have spoken here tonight, represent very nearly 500,000 electors, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House are unanimous in their opposition to a bridge?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 556.] The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central had no authority to make any such statement on my behalf. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where was the hon. Lady 602 last night?"] I was not consulted about my views. I have made them plain to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know the opinion of other Conservative Members from the North-East Coast, but I am sure that it is not in accordance with the traditions of the House that hon. Members opposite should impute views to hon. Members on this side of the House.
I do not want to make heavy weather of this. [Laughter.] I fully realise that hon. Members opposite were very elated at the bit of luck which came their way, and I should be the last person to deny anybody the right to take advantage of any bit of luck that may come his way. What I want to ensure is that my views should be recorded accurately. Am I not allowed to have protection from you, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of this kind? I do not mind whether there is a tunnel or a bridge, as long as we have some form of communication between North and South.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am quite unable to guide the hon. Lady through that labyrinth. I was present last night at the debate on the Adjournment. The debate was raised by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), and was to be on the subject of road conditions at Framwellgate Moor. The debate extended itself into a discussion of a Tyne tunnel and bridge. I think that this is another example of the inconvenience which is caused to hon. Members when, on the Motion for the Adjournment, matters are raised of which notice has not been given, so that hon. Members who are interested in those matters do not know and so, perhaps, do not attend.

§ Mr. Short
I am the Member referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady was kind enough to send me a letter telling me that she would raise this matter today, and ended her letter by saying that she was going to enjoy herself when she raised it. Far be it from me to deprive the hon. Lady of any enjoyment—[HON. MEMBERS: "On the bridge or in the tunnel?"]—either on the bridge or in the tunnel. I do not know how much fun she gets. The hon. Lady has missed a good deal, but it is a bit unfair to take it out on me. I should have thought it an abuse 603 of the rules of order of the House to raise a point of order merely to get a bit of enjoyment out of it.
The hon. Lady makes two allegations against me, and I think that I am entitled to answer them. She first accuses me of discourtesy in not informing her that I was going to raise that matter.

§ Dame Irene Ward
I did not.

§ Mr. Short
As the hon. Lady knows, the debate arose suddenly. It was, therefore, very difficult to inform the hon. Lady about it. In any case, as, on the whole, my remarks were complimentary rather than derogatory, I should not have thought that that was a very great offence. Technically, I suppose, there was an offence, and for that I apologise.
Secondly, the hon. Lady was at great pains to prove that I misrepresented her. I have been reading through the record of all her comments on this topic in the last five years. I shall not read them all to the House. However, on a great many occasions the hon. Lady has expressed herself in no uncertain terms to various Ministers of Transport, to the whole succession of Ministers of Transport, in favour of a tunnel—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot go into all that.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
On a point of order. There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to get clear. It arises from what you said just now. If an hon. Member catches your eye on the Motion for the Adjournment he is perfectly entitled to speak on any matter that he desires to raise, provided it does not involve legislation, is he not?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is true.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said is perfectly true, but past Speakers as well as I have from time to time pointed out that inconvenience arises when a subject of which no notice has been given is raised on the Motion for the Adjournment. That is true as a matter of practice. What the right hon. Gentleman said is quite right, viewing the matter strictly as one of order. Thus, I did not attempt to stop the 604 subject of last night's debate being discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is a tradition in the House that when an hon. Member desires to raise a matter on the Adjournment he does, if there is time, inform the Minister concerned, but is an hon. Member who wishes to raise a subject on the Adjournment under a strict obligation to try to think of every other hon. Member who may be interested in it and to inform him?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not put the matter as high as that, but I say that this sort of thing does happen when subjects are raised without notice. Afterwards, hon. Members complain that they had no notice of them.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Am I not entitled—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must keep order in the House. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wilson
On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the precedent which seems to have become established in the last ten minutes, are we now to take it that if, by any mischance, any hon. Member on this side of the House—I do not consider that this is likely—should be absent from an important debate he will then have the right, on a point of order the next day, to make the speech that he otherwise would have made in the debate?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am very glad that that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared to me that the hon. Lady for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), by raising a point of order, was making a speech on the Tyne tunnel. I hope that no Member of the House will abuse the raising of a point of order.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked for your guidance—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady has had my guidance. She has got what she wanted to say on the record. I think that that is all she wanted to do.

§ Mr. Popplewell
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what may be termed your castigation of hon. 605 Members, and your saying that they were wrong to raise matters on the Adjuornment as they did, in fairness to myself and to others I would point out that it was I who raised the question last night of the Tyne tunnel, but that I began my remarks by apologising to the Minister for raising the matter somewhat suddenly, and by admitting that I knew he could not give me a complete answer then and there, and I said that I hoped he would consider the matter and eventually write to me about it. Surely that was well in accordance with the custom of the House.
May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to interpret the Ruling you have just given it will be very difficult indeed for anybody to move far from the very narrow point of which notice has been given for an Adjournment debate?

§ Mr. Speaker
I said nothing in castigation of, or even of reflection on, the hon. Member. I said only that my experience has been, as it was of all past Speakers, too, that when subjects are introduced in debate on the Adjournment without notice having been given of them they are very often followed by complaints by other hon. Members. That is all I said. I took no steps to prevent the hon. Member from mentioning his topic. He conducted himself in the matter with perfect propriety. However, I warn the House that when subjects are raised without notice that causes inconvenience and very often trouble afterwards.