State Security (Hansard, 11 February 1987)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of questions it will be in your recollection that I came to see you, at your request, on this subject on Monday, at 2 pm in your house, arising out of questions—and no one could know the answers to those questions. Therefore, I apologise for any discourtesy in not giving you full notice that I wish to raise, under Standing Order No. 20, the role of the Law Officers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to the police entry into the BBC in Glasgow.
First of all, I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker. that the matter is important. It is important because it is simply not credible that the Lord Advocate could have properly performed his duties without informing himself as to the damage to the public interest caused by the Zircon film. Specifically, how does the Lord Advocate assess the damage to the public interest? How does the noble Lord Cameron of Lochbroom alone assess the damage to the public interest of a wholesale search of the BBC? May there not be a changing public interest as events proceed? Must there not come a time when Ministers say to themselves, "For heaven's sake, we have gone far enough."? [Interruption.]—

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall take the point of order afterwards. May I just say that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is perfectly in order to make this SO 20 application arising out of the answer that he received to his question. However, he must make the case that it is urgent, specific and important.

§ Mr. Dalyell
How does Lord Cameron of Lochbroom assess the security interests without consulting the Foreign Office?

§ Mr. Marlow
The hon. Gentleman always gets away with it—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must contain himself, please.

§ Mr. Marlow
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is always abusing the procedures of the House, and it is time it was stopped.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow has as much right as anybody to submit an application under Standing Order No. 20 arising from a question which has just been answered. It is not an abuse. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would also have that right, if he chose to exercise it.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Many more serious Conservative Members know that deep legal issues are involved. This is not a matter of cheap party politics. As the scene unfolds, is there not a continuing reassessment of the public interest? That is an important point.
I now have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite. It is definite because it relates to the evidence that was given by a distinguished Conservative Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, to the Franks Committee in 1972. He said: 314 In exercising this discretion the factors which the Attorney-General of the day takes into account are

1) The strength of the evidence.

2) The degree of culpability of the potential defendant."—

§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Dalyell

"3) The damage to the Public Interest, which has resulted from the disclosure.

4) The effect of Prosecution on the Public Interest."
The noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson as he now is, said: In considering factors relating to the Public Interest, I, and my predecessors, may consult other Ministers so that"—

§ Mr. Dickens
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Dalyell
we are in a better position to assess the damage which has been caused and the effect which the Prosecution may have on the Public Interest. The important legal point is whether the Solicitor-General is right or Professor Bradley—on mutatis mutandis, warrant and prosecution—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time—

§ Mr. Dalyell
Finally—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please bring me the title of his application under Standing Order No. 20?

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I want the title of the hon. Gentleman's application under Standing Order No. 20.

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

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)
It is sheer intimidation, that is what it is.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the role of the Law Officers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to the police entry into the BBC in Glasgow. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said in his submission, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is meant to be helpful—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to challenge my ruling.

§ Mr. Williams
Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was challenging the Chair and saying that you were not carrying out your duties. He is the one who should apologise.
My point of order is this. It is important for hon. Members to refresh their memories on the rules. Is it not a fact that we cannot raise a point of order in the middle of a Standing Order No. 20 application? If that is the case, it may help to cool future proceedings if, instead of hon. Members hopping up and down all the time, creating 315 difficulties for you, Mr. Speaker, you were to remind the House of that rule. Then perhaps we could have more orderly conduct.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Let us take them all at once. Mr. Forth first.

§ Mr. Forth
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you help the House in the context of what has just happened and remind us of the criterion for making an application under Standing Order No. 20? There is genuine confusion about whether anything goes within a particular time limit or whether only a specific matter of urgency must be raised and the substance cannot be argued during the submission. It would help the House if you would remind us and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of the correct method of submitting a Standing Order No. 20 application.

§ Mr. Speaker
Does any other hon. Member have a point of order on this matter? If so, I shall deal with them all at once.

§ Mr. Winnick
rose—

§ Mr. Dickens
rose—

§ Mr. Winnick
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does it not strike you as rather strange that writs should have been issued to stop a film being shown—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That has nothing to do with this matter. Mr. Dickens.

§ Mr. Dickens
I am much obliged, Sir. On a point of order, you will recall that in the past, whenever I have 316 made a Standing Order No. 20 application, I have obeyed the courtesies of the House and have kept strictly within the three-minute time limit to which we are all supposed to adhere. This was not done today. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) abused the courtesies of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The trouble is that points of order were raised when the hon. Gentleman was making his Standing Order No. 20 application. Therefore, I had to take it into account in assessing whether his three minutes had elapsed. It is far better—I quite agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—that points of order should not be raised in the middle of an SO 20 application. As to the hon. Member's question, I am pleased to reaffirm that, normally, applications under Standing Order No. 20 should be submitted to me by noon. But if a matter suddenly occurs subsequently in the Chamber, it is perfectly legitimate for an hon. Member to raise the matter under the Standing Order No. 20 procedure. It does not happen often, but it is possible to do it, and it happened today.

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that if an emergency arises in the Chamber, that emergency normally relates, as far as you are concerned, only to Question Time emergencies, or does it relate to any time?

§ Mr. Speaker
Applications under Standing Order No. 20 must be raised at their proper time, which normally is immediately after statements, or, as happened today, when there are no statements, immediately after Question Time.