HC Deb 07 March 1980 vol 980 cc802-5
Mr. Christopher Price

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg your guidance about the procedure for applying for second Adjournment debates.

In the past, when I have attempted to apply for second Adjournment debates, it has been indicated to me—whether rightly or wrongly I am not certain—that I must, as it were, get a willing Minister before applying either to you in your office, Mr. Speaker, or to the occupant of the Chair at that time, to be allowed a second Adjournment debate.

Yesterday I tried to get a Minister but it was four and a half hours before the relevant Ministers had decided between themselves which of them was to take the matter. By the time that I had reported to the Chair, I was informed that two other people were in front of me, having found willing Ministers rather more quickly than I had been able to do.

I do not make any allegations on this occasion. All I plead is that, if we are to have a procedure for applying for second Adjournment debates on days when it looks as though the business of the House is likely to collapse, there should be clear rules as to queuing techniques—who is first, second and third in the queue. When wishing to apply for an Adjournment debate, to whom should one apply first—to the occupant of the Chair, or to the relevant Minister?

I am speaking hypothetically, but is there arty protection for Back Benchers against a Government who might be disposed to put one application in the refrigerator for a few hours while they wheel in a few more helpful applications ahead of the queue? If you could tell the House how the procedure, as you see it, Mr. Speaker, should be followed, it would be of great assistance to all hon. Members.

Mr. Foot: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has raised an important point of order in the interests of Back Benchers. I am sure that the House will also agree that he has raised it in a restrained manner. He showed more moderation than Lord Clive showed on a famous occasion.

It appears that Ministers went to extraordinary lengths yesterday to try to ensure that we did not have the debate on the subject of small businesses that my hon. Friend wished to raise. If that were to become the practice, it would mean that the rights of Back Benchers were being seriously eroded. There used to be a system in the House, Mr. Speaker—as I am sure you will recall—under which it was not necessary to have hooked a Minister before the debate could be arranged. Perhaps we should return to that practice, which would at least safeguard the rights of Back Benchers.

My hon. Friend has suggested that you should give guidance to the House on the matter, Mr. Speaker. May I also suggest that in this instance it would be a good idea if the Leader of the House came to the House on Monday—particularly as next week is invalid direction week—and told us why an invalid or shady direction was given? However, that is not for you, Mr. Speaker. It is for the good sense and good taste of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Lawrence

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was the fortunate beneficiary of the second Adjournment debate last night. Whilst clarification of the procedure is important for hon. Members, I should not like the view to be put about that the allocation of my time was in any sense other than through the appropriate procedures. The procedure is to go first to your office, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether a second Adjournment debate is possible, then to contact a Department to see whether a Minister is available, and then to go back to your office, Mr. Speaker, when confirmation is received.

That was done in my case very early on—at 4 o'clock. The procedure was, as I understand, perfectly proper. The matter that I sought to raise was the nearest I shall ever come to making an attack on the Government. It was not in the Government's interest to have a debate on fluoridation last night, so, in essence, it was an attack on the Government and their policies.

Although clarification is necessary, I think that it was proper that I should clarify my position. The innuendo is that the Government were trying to give me an Adjournment debate in preference to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) because it was in their interest to do so. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to both hon. Members and to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) for their comments. The system that I have followed is that of first come, first served. When an hon. Member gives notice to my office before 8 o'clock in the evening—I do not accept applications after 8 o'clock—I accept the application as long as he has a Minister to reply. My predecessor thought that an Adjournment debate did not make sense if there was no Minister to reply.

The House knows that I have no control over Government Departments—nor do I seek it—but I am jealous of the rights of hon. Members. Government Departments must also be jealous of the rights of hon. Members, because the House is the cornerstone of our democracy. There is not much point in my promising to make a further statement, but I hope that Government Departments will realise that hon. Members have rights in this House, especially with regard to Adjournment debates.

Sir Ronald Bell

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will confirm that there is a fallback position in that an hon. Member may rise to speak on the Adjournment even if he has not obtained a Minister to reply. Your predecessors have said that they would frown upon that practice, but it is still open to an hon. Member to speak when it is justified, provided that he is not advocating legislation.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. It is possible for an hon. Member to rise in his place in those circumstances. He is equally correct in saying that my predecessors frowned upon the practice. As a rule, if the Speaker indicates to the House that he feels that a given procedure is wrong. hon. Members have co-operated. Very few have continued in the face of Mr. Speaker saying that he frowned upon the practice. It has done good to have had this matter aired.

Mr. Freud

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has seemed to me, and to many other Members who have raised matters on the Adjournment, that it is not always helpful to have a ministerial reply.

I wonder whether the House will consider the validity of a Member raising a subject on the Adjournment in front of a duty Minister—there always seem to be plenty around who can make the usual courteous reply—and have the matter answered by mail later. When the debate collapses, it is a great opportunity for hon. Members to raise matters that they have tried with repeated letters on Wednesdays to bring before the House on the Adjournment, for which there is always a fair amount of competition. Will you consider that, Mr. Speaker? I think that it is a good idea.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is asking—again it is not my business, and I hope that the House will forgive me for commenting on it—the silent brigade to speak. The duty Minister is usually a Whip, and Whips are normally unaccustomed to oratory until they get another job.

Mr. Christopher Price

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you say that Adjournment debates are allocated on a first come, first served basis, may I confirm that you mean first come, first served, with the verbal agreement of the Minister in one's pocket? I am not asking you to rule on the matter on Monday, but the situation is not satisfactory. A first come, first served procedure, with the application registered with you before the Minister has agreed to reply, might be better. Perhaps we should ask the usual channels or the Procedure Committee to consider the matter. It is necessary to have clarity in our procedures. I agree that you have no control over Ministers, Mr. Speaker, but there is no clarity at the moment.

Mr. Speaker

Of course I shall look at the matter again, and will make a brief statement when I have done so.