HC Deb 29 March 1984 vol 57 cc460-2

4.3 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

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 condideration, namely, the arrest and questioning by police of 19 of my constituents. I was informed last evening by the NUM branch secretary at Kellingley colliery in Yorkshire that 19 of my constituents had been questioned at Mansfield police station on Tuesday 27 March. The complaint that has been made about this interview by that NUM branch, and, indeed, by my 19 constituents, is that, prior to being taken into the police station, accompanied by two policemen for every man, they all had their photographs taken. When they arrived in the police station, they were interviewed individually by two plain clothes officers, who showed no sign of identification.

The great concern which the NUM officials, and, indeed, the men, feel on this matter arises from the questions which the men alleged were put to them, and for the benefit of the House, and my case, I shall quote them. The men allege that they were asked how they voted at the last general election. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Unbelievable."] I hear "Unbelievable" from the Government Benches. When this was first put to me I shared that view, and that is why I think it is so important and necessary for the House to hear it this afternoon, rather than read it in the press.

Secondly, they were asked how they would vote if there were only a Conservative party and a Communist party in the country. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Unbelievable."] Unbelievable again, but this is what these men say was put to them. They were asked who they had voted for in the election for the president of the NUM. They were asked how much they paid in union subscriptions. They were also asked several questions about the local NUM branch secretary at Kellingley colliery. They were asked to——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hesitate to stop the hon. Gentleman, but he must show why this is an urgent matter.

Mr. Lofthouse

I am showing it by the questions and the fact that this strike has now been operating some three weeks and the House has had no opportunity to show its feelings. I am trying to isolate this case and to point out the seriousness of what is alleged to be taking place.

These men were asked to name the organiser of the local strike centre. They allege that they were asked what newspaper they read, and whether it was the Morning Star. They were asked a rather silly question, in my view: what did they think of Mr. Scargill driving around in a Jaguar? They allege that the officer said to them that their boss himself did not do that kind of thing.

Let me say immediately that I am no police basher. I believe that policemen are playing their part in maintaining law and order. They have a job to do, and undoubtedly they will be doing it, and certainly doing it on instructions. But for the House, and, indeed, for the country, it must be of great concern if these allegations are true. I am not in a position to say that they are. However, in this sorry affair—and it is a question not only of the case to which I am referring, but we read every day about different incidents, some by police, some by pickets—surely it must be the wish of the House that the truth should come out. If the only possible way that the truth can come out, for the benefit of the police and of the men in question——

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

And the Nottinghamshire people.

Mr. Lofthouse

And the Nottinghamshire people—I fully endorse the remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). The facts should come out. The longer it goes on with one person accusing another, and another person accusing somebody else, the worse the situation gets, and it is getting very bitter. I do not know whether the House realises the situation that is developing in a particular area. No one wants to hear threats of anarchy and so on. It is time that the matter was investigated. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to grant a debate so that we can at least decide whether there is sufficient evidence for a public inquiry to investigate whether the allegations are true.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the arrest and questioning by the police of 19 of his constituents. The hon. Gentleman has made some very serious allegations in his application. I listened carefully, as I know the House will have done, to what he said. He will know that the only decision that I have to make is whether the matter should take precedence over the business set down for today. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Later——

Mr. Joe Ashton (Bassetlaw)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point relates to your ruling, which I am not challenging, on the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) under Standing Order No. 10.

The opportunities for the House to discuss the serious position in the Nottinghamshire coalfield are limited. The only opportunity will be the Adjournment debate for the Easter recess next Thursday. I understand that nothing is laid down in the rules, but that debate tends to be limited to three hours. Because of the special circumstances, can you rule that the debate should be allowed to run its course next week and not be curtailed by the Government?

Mr. Speaker

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do that. I fully understand that the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is serious, but there is a Standing Order which limits the debate to three hours. The hon. Gentleman will have to seek other opportunities to raise the issue, and those opportunities are available. We had a fairly wide discussion on the matter this afternoon.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you ruled on the application of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse ), you said that serious allegations had been made. The hon. Gentleman made the allegations within the House and, because of your ruling, that is where the matter rests. In the light of the serious allegations which the hon. Gentleman has made, I suggest that he repeats them outside the House or, alternatively, reports them to the chief constable of the area in which the offence occurred so that a full investigation can be carried out.

Mr. Lofthouse

Some of the men involved repeated the allegations last night and at lunchtime today. I was not making any suggestion. I was merely informing the House of what the men had said. They have stated in public that which was put to them, and I was not saying that that was the case.

Mr. Speaker

Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says in the House under protection.