§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice that I wish to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. Is this the right time to move the motion?
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is the time for the right hon. Gentleman to make his application.
§ Dr. OwenI beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Prime Minister to comply with the procedures for reference to the Security Commission laid down by the former Prime Minister on 10 May 1965 and her interpretation of the procedure relating to the Security Commission in her reply to questions on 20 July 1982.The matter is specific, because the Security Commission was established by the former Prime Minister, now Lord Home of the Hirsel, on 23 January 1964 in a statement to the House. In reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the former Prime Minister made it clear that reference to the Security Commission itself would not preclude discussion in this House. This matter has therefore always been subject to discussion despite a reference to the Security Commission.
It is also specific because of a change in procedure on 10 May 1965 in which the former Prime Minister anticipated the situation that at present faces the House. The right hon. Gentleman said:
But to delay the activation of the Commission until the matter was no longer sub judice might involve months of delay and seriously prejudice the effectiveness of the Commission's inquiries.He went on:I propose to alter the procedure so that a reference can be made to the Commission as soon as the Government are satisfied, or have good reason to think, that a breach of security has occurred in the public service.He added:But when a reference to the Commission relates to a matter which is the subject of criminal proceedings before the courts, then, for the reason I have explained, no public announcement of the reference to the Commission would be made until it is appropriate to make a statement."—[Official Report, 10 May 1965; Vol. 712, c. 34.]On 20 July 1982 the present Prime Minister said:With regard to any reference to the security commission"—on being pushed by the Leader of the Opposition—the right hon. Gentleman will know that I am not able to comment. If he examines previous statements to the House he will understand why."—[Official Report, 20 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 211.]It is my submission that any right hon. or hon. Member hearing the Prime Minister's reply to that question had reason to believe that a submission to the Security Commission could, and probably would, be made by the Prime Minister before the court case.As for urgency, you, Mr. Speaker, have listened to the debate. There is an overwhelming feeling in the House that the House should discuss this matter; it has been expressed in questions by many hon. Members. Everyone understands that you might have felt that the House would wish to pause for reflection. To have a pause for reflection going on for months, or even weeks, is insufficient. There 689 is urgency about the matter. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made clear, it will be debated all over the world and not just in this country.
Its importance stems directly from the Prime Minister's answer to myself. The right hon. Lady said that the most important thing was the conviction. Many hon. Members, I believe, consider that the most important thing is that the Security Commission should have taken action as soon as humanly possible over this most serious breach. The matter is further compounded by the Prime Minister's refusal to consider any parliamentary investigation or scrutiny.
I submit, therefore, that as many of these issues relate to privacy and the democratic rights of individual citizens, the voice of the House should be heard. The matter should not be left simply to retired admirals or air marshals, to the Law Lords or civil servants.
I do not expect a decision to be taken by the Prime Minister and the Government, but this House, I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, should be given the opportunity of an early debate. There are precedents of debates on security—in 1979 on the Blunt affair, in 1963 on the Denning report and in 1962 on the security services. I hope that you will consider this request.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely
the failure of the Prime Minister to comply with the procedures for reference to the Security Commission laid down by the former Prime Minister on 10 May 1965 and her interpretation of the procedure relating to the Security Commission in her reply to questions on 20 July 1982.The House is aware of the exchanges that have taken place during business questions and earlier both during and after the statement. The right hon. Gentleman asks for a three-hour debate either tonight or next Monday. However, the House has told me that I must take into account the several factors set out in the order and give no reasons for my decision.This is not an easy matter on which to rule. In my own mind, I am clear in saying that I cannot rule that the right 690 hon. Gentleman's submission falls within the provisions of the Standing Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House. [Hon. Members: "Shame."] Hon. Members must not shout like that in an intimidating way when a ruling is given from this Chair. It is quite unparliamentary and unworthy.
§ Later—
§ Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without discussing whether lengthy speeches or Prayer Cards are the most important items before us or whether they are diversionary tactics, may I return to the ruling that you made, without challenging it? You said that there could not be an emergency debate as a result of my right hon. Friend's submission—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a long time and knows that he cannot raise an issue after a ruling has been given. That is the end of that matter, at least for this afternoon.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman may raise a point of order if it is on another matter, but not if it is on my ruling.
§ Mr. OgdenCould you explain for another occasion, Mr. Speaker, when an hon. Member would be right to rise to suggest that when there is, perhaps, a narrow difference of opinion the issue could be put to the House for it to decide?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat would require a change in our rules.
§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without reference to the submission made today under Standing Order No. 9, I wonder whether the time has come for the House to be informed about the various factors that guide you in making your decision. It puzzles us.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House consciously and, in my opinion, very wisely decided that Mr. Speaker should not reveal the reasons for his decision.