§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)The Under-Secretary of State courteously sat through almost our entire debate on the report of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday. He will recollect that at considerable length—perhaps at too great length, in the view of some hon. Members who wished to speak—I raised the issues of the use of public money and the proposed sale of a tractor line at Bathgate.
In the past 24 hours another calamity has hit Bathgate, with the announced closure today of the Plessey factory, which I have been told about by Mr. Jim Quinn and Mrs. Ina Love. It means that a further 350 jobs will be lost in a town that is beset by the problems of the motor industry.
I understand that parliamentary time is a valuable commodity. I also recollect that on one of the last occasions that an hon. Member tried to get a second Adjournment debate I was the subject of Mr. Speaker's comment to the effect that notice had to be given. There was such an attempt admittedly at one minute past 8 o'clock this evening when it was clear that the Irish business would collapse. I cannot blame the business managers, because no one can tell what Irish Members will do. I have been in the House when Irish Members have complained bitterly that they have not had sufficient time. When they are given a whole parliamentary day, for some reason or other they do not make use of it. I do not blame either the Opposition or Government business managers, but my contention is that parliamentary time is a very valuable commodity. I think that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), who is chairman of many Committees, assents to that proposition. When we have something of a windfall, on those rare occasions when time is forthcoming at the end of a debate, surely we are entitled to ask briefly and courteously—I am not asking Ministers for an answer off the top of their heads—particular questions.
I raised with the Scottish Office and with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—the possibility of a Scottish Minister being in the Chamber. I wanted to ask him a very simple question—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)Order. The hon. Gentleman must not start a debate. I take it that he is raising a point of order.
§ Mr. DalyellI was explaining my efforts to get a Treasury or Industry Minister to attend the House. I understand that they have other commitments. I had hoped, in particular, to get a Scottish Minister who could tell the House when Scottish Office Ministers first knew of the British Leyland decision—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case. My job is to protect the House and to ensure that its rules and procedures are observed. The hon. Gentleman knows that Mr. Speaker has ruled on previous occasions that, when a right hon. or hon. Member wishes to raise with a Minister a matter on a second Adjournment, notification must be made before 8 pm. Mr. Speaker's reasons for that will be well known to the hon. Gentleman, since he was the hon. Member who was then concerned. 212 That is the rule and until the House changes it I have no power or authority to accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
§ Mr. DalyellMay I take that as an absolute ruling as such, because normally I am absolutely obeisant to the Chair? I hope that the Chair will recognise that in 19 years it has had virtually no trouble with me—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The Speaker on that occasion said that any application after 8 pm—he gave the reasons, which I need not reiterate tonight—was unreasonable for the House: hon. Members would not know what was being raised; Ministers would have no chance of receiving proper advice, and so on. Mr. Speaker said that he would stick to that rule until the House decided otherwise. The House has not decided otherwise, and so I must rule—I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels—that the hon. Gentleman cannot raise that matter on this occasion.
§ Mr. DalyellNormally I would not be unreasonable, but I am talking about what Ryder only two years ago called the jewel in Leyland's crown—the Bathgate factory—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. There are many matters which hon. Members consider to be most important and which are most important, but as the hon. Gentleman knows we are bound by the rules of the House. It is a matter of precedents and so on. Mr. Speaker has given a ruling. It is there and he says that it must be observed until the House decides otherwise.
§ Mr. DalyellThere are other hon. Members who wish to speak. This matter is not only important, but desperately urgent. My reason for testing the patience of my colleagues and of the House is that this matter is urgent and Parliament may be the only source of redress. When thousands of jobs are at stake, even if it means infringing or trying to make parliamentary rules as elastic as possible, one ought to make an attempt to do so. I think that I see the Leader of the House. I certainly see my right hon. Friend the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. I do not quite understand whether there is a ruling, or a recommendation. If there is a hard ruling, I shall test the patience of the House no longer. However, if it is a recommendation I am prepared to risk the Chair's wrath—although I do not take the Chair's wrath lightly—to argue the case of British Leyland—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I shall repeat what Mr. Speaker said to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), when he raised a similar issue in November 1979. He said:
Like my predecessor, I have followed the rule that if the application is made after 8 pm it is an unreasonable application … In the last Parliament, I declined to accept applications after 8 pm, as I have in this Parliament. Until the House resolves otherwise, I intend to continue to pursue that policy."—[Official Report, 16 November 1979; Vol. 973 c. 1661–2.]That is my ruling. I am sorry, but that issue cannot be pursued further.
§ Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Thornaby)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the submission of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is that he made the application early this evening in—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman might understand that, but it is not my understanding. The 213 application was made after 8 pm as far as the Speaker's Department is concerned. I have given my ruling and we cannot pursue it.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several years ago I raised an Adjournment debate in the Minister's absence. The then Speaker, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, made it clear that an Adjournment debate could take place—whether or not the Minister agreed—on the basis that Mr. Speaker would deprecate such an Adjournment debate, but could not prevent it from taking place. In those circumstances I had a very brief Adjournment debate and I recognised the difficulties involved in providing a Minister. However, the then Speaker did not attempt—nor did he say that he would attempt—to prevent an Adjournment debate taking place in such circumstances.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. However, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who originally raised a point of order because he wanted a second Adjournment debate, says that he does not wish to be unfair, or awkward. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the convention is that, although, technically, it is sometimes possible to discuss all matters on an Adjournment debate, subjects are chosen. Therefore, we are discussing an abuse of the conventions of the House, not of the rules. The ruling that I have given on applying for a second Adjournment debate after 8 pm was made by Mr. Speaker. He indicated fairly to the House that, until it decided otherwise, that was the rule. I am merely expressing Mr. Speaker's ruling.
§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point borders on the fringe of the point of order that has been raised. I am anxious that the voice of a Conservative Member should be heard briefly in support of the principle that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) set out. I refer to his observation that parliamentary time is very precious and that when we get a bonus or windfall of perhaps an hour it is unfortunate that we should have Mr. Speaker's ruling—to which we bow—when the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has referred to an apparently contrary ruling from a former Speaker, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. It would be unsuitable and unseemly to go into the details, but it is important that our procedure on the question of bonus time should be reexamined swiftly.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is a legitimate point, but it is not a matter for me to deal with now. I have stated the ruling that Mr. Speaker gave in 1979. We cannot debate the procedures of the House tonight.
§ Mr. DalyellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should hate to embarrass you in any way, but is it possible to refer this situation to Mr. Speaker? He may have a public engagement tonight, but there is some confusion between rulings and conventions. I candidly admit that, in returning to the question of Bathgate and the uses of public money, I am perhaps infringing the conventions. May wrath fall on my head for doing so, but this is rather different from the question of rulings referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and other hon. Members. Things have moved on from yesterday. It is wholly to the credit of the authorities concerned that Mr. Gordon Downey—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman wants to argue his case. I know how keenly he feels and how serious the situation is, but I must protect the House and its procedures, as laid down. Mr. Speaker's ruling is quite clear. Application for a second Adjournment debate after 8 pm is unreasonable, and he is not prepared to accept it. I have made my ruling, and I ought now to put the Question.
§ Mr. CryerOn a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which concerns the protection of the House with which you are rightly concerned. Last night, I attended a meeting on the economy, and a questioner asked "What good is Parliament? Nothing can be done by Parliament". I wonder what your answer would be to the ordinary citizen who sees the protection of the House resulting in the exclusion of debate when thousands of jobs are being lost. That is the subject that my hon. Friend wishes to raise—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I think that I have grasped the hon. Gentleman's point. He knows that almost every day important questions are raised under Standing Order No. 9. I am talking about the procedures of the House. The matters that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise are important. I should like to discuss them, but I have given the ruling about Adjournment debates. I must therefore put the Question.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, relating to Standing Order No. 9. When I learnt about these redundancies at Plessey, I consulted Opposition Front Bench colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), about whether to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. My right hon. Friend's answer was simple. He said "This is happening to all of us. We are all experiencing closures. My advice is that in the case of Plessey, Bathgate, though it is desperately important and concerns the future of our technological industries, you should not raise it because it will be seen as an abuse of the House." I did not raise the matter at prime time.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say that the House must be protected, but Parliament is here to be used for the protection of industries and jobs. Therefore, at the risk of testing your patience, I submit that there are only certain forums where key questions can be asked, of which this House is one. I have no other opportunity formally to put my views on record, and I should like to know when Industry Ministers and Scottish Office Ministers first knew that there were to be changes involving the tractor line at Leyland—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is once again arguing his case. We are talking about rules and procedure. My job is to carry out the procedures and rules that have been laid down in the House over many years. It is time that I put the Question.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthI in no way wish to seek to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in pursuance of Mr. Speaker's former ruling. Before you draw the proceedings to a close, I should like to support what the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) said earlier. When hon. Members are faced with lobbies of unemployed people day after day and wish to raise the unprecedented problems facing our country, it is harsh to see two hours 29 minutes of parliamentary time—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is arguing about the procedures of the House. It is for the House to change its procedures, and the Chair will then be bound by its decisions. It has been made clear by Mr. Speaker, and I have read what he said to the House. He said that an application for a second Adjournment debate after 8 pm is unreasonable and that he is unwilling to accept it. That rule will continue until the House has decided otherwise.
The situation could not be any clearer and I cannot allow what is becoming a debate on whether the procedures of the House allow hon. Members to raise all the questions that they want to raise. If the hon. Gentleman is proceeding with that debate he is abusing the conventions and the rules of the House.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthI do not wish to do that and I shall finish briefly. I simply hope that Mr. Speaker will take note of the comments made tonight and that some flexibility can be introduced at the margin so that, when two hours and twenty-nine minutes are going by the board, that is regarded as being rather different from an hour or twenty minutes. I hope that that will be recognised.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIf the House needs that assurance, I can assure it that tonight's proceedings will not only be read by Mr. Speaker in Hansard, but will be discussed.
§ Mr. CryerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you saying that Mr. Speaker has said that no Adjournment debate can take place? As I said earlier, I have a very strong—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman should have heard the first time. I have said that the second Adjournment application was made by the hon. Gentleman after 8 pm. That was the ruling to which Mr. Speaker referred.
I replied to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the conventions of the House. I agreed that everybody would deprecate—as Mr. Speaker would—hon. Members who, on an Adjournment on a structure plan in Buckinghamshire, raised what was happening in other parts of the kingdom. That would have no relation to the original Adjournment debate and would be deprecated both by the House and Mr. Speaker. That is all that I have said.
§ Mr. CryerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to explain. In 1974, or 1975, I was speaking on a second Adjournment debate but no Minister could be obtained. It was not a case of having another Adjournment debate. Mr. Speaker then made it clear to me that if I proceeded he would deprecate that, in the absence of the Minister.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have repeated the ruling given by Mr. Speaker in November 1979. His concluding remarks were that that ruling would stand and would be sustained until the House decided otherwise. I am bound to follow that ruling.
§ Mr. CryerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to move that the Adjournment motion be taken and that the House vote on it, because if that is Mr. Speaker's ruling—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I must put the Question.
§ Question put: That this House do now adjourn:—
§ The House divided:Ayes 72, Noes 32.
| Division No. 13] | [9.8 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander,Richard | Mather,Carol |
| Ancram,Michael | Mawby, Ray |
| Beaumont-Dark,Anthony | Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin |
| Benyon,W(Buckingham) | Monro,SirHector |
| Blackburn,John | Montgomery,Fergus |
| Boscawen,HonRobert | Morgan,Geraint |
| Bright,Graham | Morrison, Hon P.(Chester) |
| Brinton,Tim | Myles, David |
| Buchanan-Smith,Rt.Hon.A. | Nelson,Anthony |
| Budgen,Nick | Neubert,Michael |
| Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln) | Normanton,Tom |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Clegg,SirWalter | RhysWilliams,SirBrandon |
| Cockeram,Eric | Roberts, M. (CardiffNW) |
| Dean, Paul(NorthSomerset) | Sainsbury,HonTimothy |
| Dorrell,Stephen | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Dover,Denshore | Shepherd,Colin(Hereford) |
| Dunn,Robert(Dartford) | Sims,Roger |
| Fairgrieve,SirRussell | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Fenner, MrsPeggy | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Forman,Nigel | Stevens,Martin |
| Fox,Marcus | Thompson,Donald |
| Goodhew,Victor | Thome,Neil(IlfordSouth) |
| Goodlad,Alastair | Thornton,Malcolm |
| Gower,SirRaymond | Townend,John(Bridlington) |
| Greenway,Harry | Waddington,David |
| Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury) | Waldegrave,HonWilliam |
| Hayhoe,Barney | Watson,John |
| Heddle,John | Wells,Bowen |
| Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk) | Wheeler,John |
| Kilfedder,JamesA. | Whitney,Raymond |
| Kimball,SirMarcus | Wickenden,Keith |
| King, RtHonTom | Wiggin,Jerry |
| Lawrence,Ivan | |
| Lee,John | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| MacKay, John (Argyll) | Mr. David Hunt and Mr. John Cope. |
| Major,John |
| NOES | |
| Barnett,Guy(Greenwich) | Maxton,John |
| Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&P) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Campbell-Savours,Dale | Miller,Hal(B'grove) |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Mitchell,R.C.(Soton Itchen) |
| Dalyell,Tam | Powell,Raymond(Ogmore) |
| Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Dixon,Donald | Sandelson,Neville |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Spriggs,Leslie |
| Fletcher,Ted (Darlington) | Tinn,James |
| Ford,Ben | Wainwright,R.(ColneV) |
| George,Bruce | Wells,John(Maidstone) |
| Ginsburg,David | White, FrankR. |
| Golding,John | Wilson,Gordon (DundeeE) |
| Harrison,RtHonWalter | Wrigglesworth,Ian |
| Haynes, Frank | |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| McNamara,Kevin | Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Christopher Price. |
| McWilliam,John |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Nine o' clock.