§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House—
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I was the first to give notice—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can know that.
§ Dr. OwenI 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,
Mr. Justice Glidewell's judgment that the ban on trade union membership for anyone working at GCHQ is invalid, of no effect and a breach of the rules of natural justice.The matter is specific because, it relates only to GCHQ. It is important because in taking a decision without prior consultation on a matter that Mr. Justice Glidewell referred to as one of fundamental rights, the Prime Minister—as First Lord of the Treasury and, therefore, Minister responsible for the Civil Service — has acted unlawfully — an action without precedent and, in the words of the judgment, against the rules of natural justice. Never in our history has a British Prime Minister been found guilty in a British court of law and been placed in the dock on an issue that is, without doubt, without precedent in living memory.The matter is urgent because the judgment was made after 12 o'clock today, so it was not possible to table a private notice question for answer by the Prime Minister. It is urgent also because it is an issue on which this House should take an opinion, preferably before the Government make up their minds whether to appeal. We have been told that the Government are urgently considering an appeal. I suspect that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, want the opportunity to make a case for why the Government should not appeal and why they should re-enter negotiations to reach an accommodation with the unions about a no-strike and no-disruption agreement.
Many hon. Members have shown great interest in the matter and have given evidence to Mr. Justice Glidewell in written affidavits. As there has been no discussion in the House about GCHQ for many weeks, it is urgent that the House expresses its view on this vital matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision by the High Court on the trade unions at GCHQ.I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Either before or after the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), I submitted an application on similar lines to those that he set out. I submit that he has not put the case properly. He did not emphasise the argument which must appeal to you—as a Speaker who has constantly said that he is concerned that the voice of 45 Parliament should be heard before and not after the event — about the crucial nature of the Government's statement that they may appeal.
The voice of the House of Commons should be heard before, and not after, any decision is made. By Wednesday, it will be too late. I am making an absolutely bona fide point of order. It is not a Johnny-come-lately submission. I asked questions about GCHQ on 18 December, long before the Foreign Secretary's statement. That is important because, in a sense, I feel that I was unwittingly partly responsible for the chain of events that followed—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. What is the point of order for me?
§ Mr. DalyellIn December I was told—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. What is the point of order that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put to me? I am well aware of his considerable interest in and knowledge of this matter. He must put a point of order to me, or we must move on.
§ Mr. DalyellIt is a point of importance, upon which the right hon. Member for Devonport did not touch. In mid-December I was told that GCHQ at Cheltenham had decoded the crucial orders to the Belgrano — [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that I want any help. I am answering a point of order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members that I listened exceedingly carefully to what the Leader of the House said in his business statement earlier this afternoon about the milk regulations debate on Wednesday, and to what he said about GCHQ. I believe he said that he was proposing to discuss the matter through the usual channels. If anything comes of those discussions I shall, of course, bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. I cannot go beyond that this afternoon.
§ Mr. Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey)The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) twice this afternoon, in the hearing of the House, said that he had made an application under Standing Order No. 10, which clearly he was not granted. Have the rules of the House been changed? I have always understood that if an hon. Member applies for a Standing Order No. 10 debate, and that is not allowed by the Chair, it was strictly out of order ever to refer to it. Yet the hon. Member for Linlithgow has been allowed to make a submission on the subject that he wished to raise under Standing Order No. 10.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. In fairness to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), it must be said that he submitted an application under Standing Order No. 10. and there is nothing wrong in his mentioning that. The news of the GCHQ judgment came after 12 o'clock, so there was no possibility of my considering a private notice question on the subject. The hon. Gentleman was within his rights to submit an application under Standing Order No. 10. It so happens that I had a further application from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). The order in which the applications were received does not matter. It is a matter for the Chair. However, it is a fact that I heard from the right hon. Gentleman before I saw his written submission. Those are the facts.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. No further points of order can arise on this matter.
§ Mr. TapsellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not pretend to be an expert on constitutional procedure, but I have sat in the House for a long time. With great respect, it appears that you have elaborated on what appears to be a new constitutional practice. If an hon. Member makes an application under Standing Order No. 10, will he now be allowed to refer to that and to ride on the tails of an application from another hon. Member? Does whether an hon. Member applies before or after 12 o'clock govern the matter? The rules appear to be in a state of flux.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know the rules. By way of explanation, I can tell the House that there was no opportunity before 12 o'clock for any submission to be made. The hon. Member for Linlithgow was within his rights to seek to make a further application under Standing Order No. 10. However, in the light of what I said to the right hon. Member for Devonport, I could not have accepted any submission from the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I allowed his point of order because he had made an application. Had there not been a previous application from the right hon. Member for Devonport, the hon. Member for Linlithgow would have been heard.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not need any help.
§ Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, I do not wish to offer you help but to seek your advice. In view of your reference to the change of business announced by the Lord President of the Council, will you afford him an opportunity now to assure the House that no decision about an appeal will be made before the usual channels have discussed the matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber and has heard what I have heard.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the House, under Standing Order No. 10, has given you instructions to reach your conclusions without giving reasons — although occasionally people may hear things to indicate, and give some understanding of, your reasons. Is it not the case that, under Standing Order No. 10, the important phrase is "in time"?
The Leader of the House said that there may be some conversations between the usual channels about a debate on this matter. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask him for an undertaking from the Government that there will be no decision on the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst)—that is, a decision on an appeal — until and unless those conversations have concluded and there is a further opportunity for any hon. Member, possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to raise an application under Standing Order No. 10 where the phrase "in time" can be applied by you accordingly.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for me.
§ Dr. OwenI rise on a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I seek your guidance on what the House can 47 do in circumstances such as those which have arisen today. The House understands that the ruling on private notice questions is for the convenience of both Ministers and the House. However, there must be a capacity for the House to respond to events, particularly in respect of an announcement that is made after 12 o'clock and especially when there is in an announcement an indication that the Government already knew the judgment that was likely to be made.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give us advice on what should be done, bearing in mind that the GCHQ issue on the last occasion was not discussed in the House for nearly eight weeks, that an application for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 was, within your discretion, refused and that the usual channels then conspired not to have a debate.
The reference today to the usual channels has caused some confusion on the Opposition Benches. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are excluded from those talks. What is meant is a discussion between the Labour party and the Conservative party for the mutual convenience of themselves in the management of the House. That mutual convenience stopped a debate on GCHQ and other issues.
The other parties in the House also have rights. How else, on a really urgent matter of business, can we ensure—particularly on the Adjournment, because it is often easier for the House to form a view across the parties in such a forum and, as it were, by vote, to put a warning shot across the Government's bows—that we have a debate? What other procedures are open to us?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt would have been necessary to have had the information before 12 o'clock for a private notice question to have been considered. The news did not come out until after 12 o'clock, so that there was no possibility of that happening. The remarks of the Leader of the House were made before the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Owen) made his Standing Order No. 10 48 application. I have no knowledge about whether conversations have or have not taken place, though I should be surprised if they had.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it in order for one hon. Member to describe another as a "Tory scab" in the way that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did—[Interruption.]—and is that not an unparliamentary expression?
The hon. Member for linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that he had had difficulty hearing what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said when making his Standing Order No. 10 application. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult for hon. Members on these Benches to hear when there is continuous heckling from the hon. Member for Bolsover?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe answer to the first part of that point of order is that personal abuse in this place should always be avoided. The answer to the second part is that interruptions from a sedentary position always disrupt our proceedings. I hope that they will not occur.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a simple point of order, Mr. Speaker. We listened with care to the way in which the Leader of the SDP tried to make his Standing Order No. 10 application. He did not explain it properly and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had to do the job for him. It became apparent that there had been two Standing Order No. 10 applications. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at what time my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made his application and at what time he was followed by the leader of the SDP making his application? May I also know why the leader of the SDP received preferential treatment over my hon. Friend?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe application of the right hon. Member for Devonport was handed to me before I received that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).