Mining Dispute (Police Action) (Hansard, 4 April 1984)

§ Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)
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 erosion of civil liberties arising from the present coal industry dispute. To put my request into proper perspective, I should tell the House that for 20 years I was a member of the National Union of Mineworkers and for a number of years I was proud to be branch secretary at the colliery at which I worked. Fourteen years before I came to the House, however, I became a member of the British Association of Colliery Management. I am still a member of, and an unpaid consultant to, that association. Members of the association have been on the receiving end on the picket lines and will no doubt be consulting me and the general secretary about these matters in the near future. It was a very sad occasion when a member of the management team was fatally injured while carrying out safety work at a colliery and I am sure that the sympathy of the House and of the whole mining industry goes to his family.
I am not seeking a debate to attack the police force —quite the contrary—but I believe that a debate would be in the best interests of the House, of civil liberties and of the police themselves. After all, when it is all over, we shall have to live together. The police have told constituents of mine that they have every sympathy but that they also have their instructions. I believe that the House has a right to know what those instructions are, what effect the Attorney-General's statement has had on them and whether they are being carried out or exceeded.
In the light of allegations received daily by my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially those with mining interests, there is an urgent need for a debate on the erosion of the civil liberties of the people whom we represent. In the past few days, my hon. Friends have given examples of what is happening. I shall not cite all those that I have received. Suffice it to say that one of my constituents who not many years ago received a commendation from the police for going to the assistance of a sergeant who was being severely abused now says that he intends to send the commendation back because of the treatment that he has received. I hope that he will not do so, as it was well earned and deserved. Another complainant was a member of the special constabulary for many years. These people are not Yorkshire yobboes, as some would describe them, but people described at a tribunal as the salt of the earth.
There are two issues involved—the mining dispute and the erosion of civil liberties. If we are not careful, the smokescreen of the mining dispute will fog the views of hon. Members about what is happening to civil liberties. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that freedom and civil rights belong both to the majority and to the minority. The House ought to debate the issue before that majority and that minority accuse us of sitting on our bottoms while freedom and liberty are eroded. I am concerned about the incidents that there have been and the serious nature of what is happening.
962 If the House is not concerned about the freedom of the people—both minorities and majorities—the House is nothing. I therefore believe that it is urgent and necessary that we should debate this subject.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the erosion of civil liberties arising from the present coal industry dispute. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, as Hansard records and as you will remember, an application was made for the fifth time for a debate along the lines of that sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) today. You said that you could not grant the request, but stressed that the debate could not be granted on that day. We all understand that there are guidelines and conventions to be followed and we were —to say the least—under the impression that you would be prepared to consider such a request if a further application were made.
I am beginning to wonder whether we are being strung along—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that is fair enough—strung along, because this has now been going on for more than a week. The first application under Standing Order No. 10 was made a week ago last Monday, immediately after the police were sent into Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. We have been under the impression that the allocation of a Standing Order No. 10 emergency debate was imminent. During the course of the past few days, we have felt that it was almost a certainty. We should like to know what the prospects are.

§ Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Bob Clay (Sunderland, North)
On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is no need for points of order on this matter. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not read into what I said yesterday more than what I have said today. No point of order can arise on that.

§ Sir Kenneth Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have ruled on the application under Standing Order No. 10. Is the point of order on a different matter?

§ Sir Kenneth Lewis
No, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. He knows that I have ruled on the matter and that I am not prepared to take further points of order about this application under Standing Order No. 10.

§ Mr. Clay
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and am not in any way challenging your 963 ruling concerning the Standing Order No. 10 application. The problem of civil liberties—I am not referring to the miners' dispute——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise a point of order on which I can rule. I cannot rule on civil liberties.

§ Mr. Clay
rose——

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are not to have a debate—you have already ruled on that matter, Mr. Speaker, and I do not challenge your ruling—when can we expect a report from the Minister about 19 of my constituents on 27 March?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Clay
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, but not on the Standing Order No. 10 application.

§ Mr. Clay
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my anxiety is that, your ruling having been given, the problem of civil liberties — quite separate from the miners' dispute— is now arising in Berkshire. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I have been there today—it is nothing to do with the miners' dispute—and we discovered, a mile and more from the Greenham common camp, police road blocks preventing ordinary members of the public——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member is relatively new, but that is not a matter on which I can rule. What happens at Greenham common is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept that you are not responsible for the business of the House but the point that arises is that if an hon. Member is to make an application under Standing Order No. 10, he must raise the matter in the House at the earliest possible moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and I have just returned from Greenham common, where a mass eviction occurred this morning. There is also a police road block there, which raises exactly the same issues as they do elsewhere. There is also confiscation of property and a police barrier around some property. [Interruption.]
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will listen sympathetically to this point. If this matter is not raised at the earliest moment, but is raised tomorrow, you might argue that it could have been raised today. I ask you to consider this point seriously, in advance of a possible application tomorrow under Standing Order No. 10. I repeat what I said yesterday: if major erosions of civil liberties occur and are brought to the attention of the House, and if, for one reason or another, the House does not find the opportunity to discuss those matters, the House will be brought into disrepute. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. On the earlier incident at Greenham common, the facts were available before 12 o'clock, as the House knows. There would have been an opportunity for hon. Members to make an application under Standing Order No. 10 if they had wished.

§ Mr. Clay
Mr. Speaker——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not prepared to take any further points on this matter.