§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)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 threatened arrests, the arrests and the conditions of bail involved in the current miners' dispute.Many of my constituents have been attempting to carry out peaceful picketing in the Nottinghamshire coalfield in furtherance of their dispute. In the past three weeks they have undergone harassment by the police forces that occupy the area. They have been arrested when they have attempted to go into the coalfield and they have been turned out of their transport.On that fateful night when a Yorkshire miner lost his life, four busloads of Yorkshire miners were told to return home when they were 10 miles from their destination. Their empty bus was given a police escort back to Yorkshire and the miners proceeded on foot.
I do not condone or make excuses for violence, but do such actions by the police help? That happens not only when miners attempt to enter the coalfields but when they leave. Some miners from Kiveton Park colliery in my constituency were leaving a coal mine after peacefully picketing when they were surrounded by the police. After names and addresses were taken, they were told that if they returned they would be heavily fined or gaoled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right.") They were escorted out of the county by two police cars and two police motor cycles. On that occasion no charges were made.
When people are charged, a condition of bail is that they do not return to that NCB work place again. Is not that like saying that they are guilty of the offences without a hearing? Over 500 people have been bailed under those conditions already. [AN HON. MEMBER: "I would have fingerprinted the lot."] The creation of a no-go area by sealing off the county of Nottinghamshire is a threat to all members of society.
Not only miners are being subjected to such treatment. Four building workers were dragged from a car at one of the road blocks. Some of my constituents are staying in what they describe as "safe houses" inside the road blocks so that they can further the trade dispute. What is happening is unprecedented in modern industrial relations.
As Member for Rother Valley in South Yorkshire I stand in the Chamber today where 47 years ago to the month, on 26 April 1937, the then Member for Rother Valley, Edward Dunn — like myself a miner from Maltby colliery in South Yorkshire — begged to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House because of what was happening at Harworth colliery in the north Nottinghamshire coalfield. Then too, there was trouble between police and pickets. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is the hon. Member now coming to a close? I ask that because he is dealing with arguments which are hardly urgent. He is speaking of the past.
§ Mr. BarronI end by saying that I believe that what I have said about arrests and the condition of bail should be considered in an urgent debate in the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the 814 House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened arrests, the arrests and the conditions of bail involved in the current miners' dispute.I say to the hon. Member and to the House that I do not in any way under-estimate what he has said. We debated this matter last week on two orders—[HON.MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am on my feet. We had energy questions yesterday and there will be a opportunity later this week to raise the matter during the Easter Adjournment debate.I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
§ Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I represent an area in the centre of Nottinghamshire. The vexed question of civil rights in a democratic society such as ours involves the civil rights of minorities. It should be no surprise to the House that 1½ million people — the majority — in Nottinghamshire would take exception to some of the remarks made today.
The problems of civil rights and civil liberties can be seen in two different ways, especially if one is part of a minority. They are seen in different lights by different individuals. I hope that those rights also apply to the 1½ million people of Nottinghamshire whom I and others represent.
§ Mr. BarronFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have just dealt with the hon. Gentleman's application under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot take a point of order on my ruling.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In saying that you could not allow the debate sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), you said that there had recently been two debates on these matters. Last week there were debates on two orders, one dealing with concessionary coal and the other dealing with the new redundancy system introduced by the Government. You will recall that, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), you specifically made it clear that when we debated those matters late on Wednesday night there was to be no reference at all to picketing, civil liberties or the fact that in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and other areas the police were acting in such a way as to undermine the freedoms of individuals—not just miners. I believe that the Official Report of the three hours of debate in which about 20 Members took part will show that no more than about three sentences related to those matters. Moreover, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) was brought to order by the Chair, in accordance with your ruling, because he dared to venture into the subject of picketing and the police.
I put it to you once again, Mr. Speaker, that we have not had a debate about the erosion of civil liberties or about the paramilitary police and it is time that we had one. I therefore call on you to reconsider the matter.
§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When we met the Home Secretary at the Home Office last Thursday, he categorically refused to discuss policing but attacked us on television the next 815 day for what we had been saying here. What chance do we have if we cannot put down parliamentary questions and the Home Secretary will not even discuss the subject with us?
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance as to how this matter can he brought before the House? I am not challenging what you have said about today's application under Standing Order No. 10 or my own attempt to raise the matter. Members who represent mining constituencies, as I do, receive urgent telephone calls and reports every day about people being arrested and held in cells. In my constituency, they have even been asked which way they voted in the recent by-election. That is absolutely contrary to the Ballot Act, which provides for the secrecy of the ballot. My hon. Friends and I are therefore continually seeking to bring the matter before the House.
In the debates to which you have referred, Mr. Speaker, it was out of order on your own ruling to discuss the police, and yesterday you rebuked the Secretary of State for Energy and me for going beyond the subject of energy supply. The situation still continues, and we are now told that the only opportunity to raise the matter is in the Easter Adjournment debate.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is this. If there is great disquiet on either side—my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to disquiet in the other direction — and public concern throughout wide areas of the country but Parliament refuses or is unable to discuss the matter, the tension and anxiety are increased and the House is brought into disrepute. It is in that context that I seek your advice on how the subject of civil liberties and police action may be brought before the Chamber for consideration.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the business under consideration today was chosen by the Leader of the Opposition, who seems not to have exercised his choice to the satisfaction of his right hon. and hon. Friends. When you have ruled on this matter, I shall seek to raise other issues arising out of that. It seems, however, to have escaped the notice of some Labour Members that the opportunity to raise the matter in question was in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will content myself with saying that I do not propose to change my ruling on Standing 3No. 10 this day. I will bear the matter very carefully in mind. I fully recognise that there is pressure in the House for a debate on these matters, and I will consider the matter as it arises.
§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the cheap point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), would you make it clear that it is not the responsibility of the Opposition to call attention to matters of great national importance such as we are discussing? It is the Government's responsibility to make time available to debate such important matters. Would you make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that that consideration did not play a part in your ruling today?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I say to the House that I do not consider what choices are made in terms of Opposition days. I deal with applications under Standing Order No. 10 as they arise.