BBC Scotland (Police Raid) (Hansard, 16 February 1987)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that Mr. Speaker deprecates Adjournment debates of which notice has not been given, but before I open on the subject of the police raid—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given notice—he has just stated that—and in view of that—

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. In view of that, I must remind the hon. Gentleman of what is stated on page 371 of "Erskine May", which I wish to read to him so that he can reflect on it: For many years successive Speakers have deprecated the introduction of subjects in an adjournment debate unless due notice had been given to the Minister concerned; and on occasion the Chair has expressed this view in forceful terms".
Mr. Speaker has also ruled that it is unreasonable, after 8 o'clock in the evening, to call on Ministers and their advisers to be ready to answer that day an Adjournment debate of which no prior notice has been given to the House. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is now seeking to do something that is contrary to the rulings of previous Speakers. Therefore, I hope that, in the light of what I have read out to him, he will not pursue the matter further.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Part of the difficulty is that I am conscious that successive Speakers have deprecated that. Normally, the rules and manners of the House of Commons are important, but the truth is that those who want to raise Adjournment debates on delicate subjects find, lo and behold, that even if they give the proper notice as they would have wished, and as I would have wished to give this morning, the Government Whips, especially in this Government—I do not exclude the Government of my choice, the Labour Government—make it clear that, somehow or another, debates will be extended. I know perfectly well that if I had given the courteous notice that I would have wished about the police raid on the BBC offices in Queen Margaret drive in Glasgow, I would have found that, by some alchemy, the previous debates would have been extended. Had I given such notice, doubtless the debate on the railway would have gone on and on and on. Once bitten, twice shy, because I have had that happen to me before.
The time of the House of Commons is extremely precious and I am conscious that we have few opportunities. Therefore, I understand that there is deprecation, and the force of it. Nevertheless, although it may be awkward, I insist on my right, and although it may be deprecated by the Chair, my right is at 9.25 pm to raise a subject which is important to many people in Scotland. It is important to put many questions on the record,so—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman what successive Speakers have ruled in this regard. I must repeat that this sort of conduct has been deprecated in strong terms by the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman insists on speaking, I shall have to hear him, but before he rises again I ask him to reflect that he is going clean contrary to successive rulings by successive occupants of the Chair.

§ Mr. Keith Raffan (Delyn)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I, as a much more junior, less experienced Member of Parliament, can anticipate that business may end early and that there may be room for a further Adjournment debate, surely the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can also do so? That is a grave abuse of the House and it is an indirect boomeranged insult at himself that he did not anticipate this opportunity. His excuse is clearly spurious.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) saw the opportunity for a second Adjournment debate and applied for one through the appropriate procedure. He made it clear that his debate would be in order and that a Minister would be on hand to answer it and he got clearance for it from Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I can confirm that he saw his opportunity and followed it up in the conventional way.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) insists on addressing the House I will listen to him, but before he rises again I ask him to reflect on what successive Speakers have said about this type of conduct. I ask him to observe the normal procedures and courtesies of the House. If he persists, I shall have to listen to him, but I ask him to reflect on that and not to rise again.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Parliament exists to be used and procedures are surely the servant either of political objectives or what hon. Members believe to be important. If the matter were some trivial issue, I would not behave in this way. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said that he was a new Member of the House and I must say with complete courtesy that he is being a little naive about the way Whips of both parties work. As soon as they know that a subject will be raised which they do not want raised, to and behold, they wheel in many hon. Members to talk at length—I shall not say "filibuster"—on a particular subject. That has happened to me. Therefore, although this may be a great black mark with Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record certain important questions about a happening which is having reverberations in Scotland. For two hours tomorrow, for example, Scottish journalists will go on strike, for the first time in many cases, about a matter of principle.

§ Mr. Raffan
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is replying on a point of order to what you said or embarking on a speech. He is being a little naive if he thinks that Government Whips can prolong debates endlessly on the obscure but important question of the Mold bypass. There are only so many Members on the Government Benches side, one and myself, who know enough to prolong a debate on it. I was certainly not prevailed on by Government Whips to prolong the debate in any way. I can only think that the hon. Gentleman is being extremely naive if he also thinks that Opposition Whips can prevail on hon. Members to prolong the first Adjournment debate on a hospital at Machynlleth for any length of time. The hon. Gentleman is using a spurious, unfounded excuse to justify an abuse of our procedures. He has no justification for it. He could easily have submitted his Adjournment 744 debate and the subject of it in time and followed the procedures as I, a much more junior and less experienced Member, did. He has bypassed—I have been talking about bypasses all night—those procedures totally. It is offensive to Mr. Speaker and to all hon. Members that he cannot follow procedures when everybody else does.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The hon. Member or Delyn talks about bypassing. The truth is that if I had not bypassed the procedures there would be no such Adjournment debate and I shall, therefore, get on with it.
The first question is, did the Scottish Office official who was informed by the Strathclyde police about the raid tell the Secretary of State for Scotland at the first opportunity? If he did not, why not? Did he or she take the view that such a matter as a weekend search of the BBC could wait until Monday morning and routine business? As the police search, at moderated level, was the first item on the 1 o'clock news on Saturday 31 January—

§ Mr. Raffan
On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow is embarking on a detailed discussion about the raids, may I ask whether he has given notice to the Minister responsible, presumably my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that he was going to raise the subject? It is not just offensive to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Chair but to all hon. Members that the hon. Gentleman should be embarking upon this debate in this way. It is a gross abuse and discourtesy and the total antithesis of our democracy and of parliamentary debate that he should not have informed my right hon. and learned Friend. He clearly has not because my right hon. and learned Friend, who is an assiduous Minister and Member of the Cabinet and a highly proficient member of the Government, would have been in his place at the Dispatch Box ready to reply to the hon. Gentleman. Not only has he bypassed the procedures of the House and gone behind the Chair's back in this devious and offensive way but he has not even had the courtesy to inform my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that he was going to embark upon this speech.
The hon. Gentleman has claimed this evening to be talking about parliamentary debate and democracy. Surely, if he wants to air the issues, he should have ensured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was present in the Chamber to be able to reply to his points so that those reading Hansard tomorrow, I and many of my unfortunate colleagues who are not present in the Chamber could have a balanced view of the subject and a full opportunity to see the different points. My hon. Friends would have been present if they had known that the hon. Gentleman was going to make a speech. He is a powerful orator and we would all have turned up to hear him. Surely the hon. Gentleman wants them to have an opportunity to see the different points and he should have ensured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was here to reply and put the other point of view. Why did he not do that because—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order with me but this must be brief.
All I can say again to the hon. Member for Linlithgow is that I have expressed clearly the views of successive Speakers about these matters. I have reminded him of the 745 normal courtesies with regard to Adjournment debates. He will recognise full well that one of the key aspects of our procedures in this place is that if Ministers are to have a reasonable opportunity to answer they must be given notice. The hon. Gentleman has already admitted that he has not gone through the normal procedures. He has not applied for an Adjournment debate to Mr. Speaker, he has not informed a Minister that he wished to raise these matters and I merely repeat that successive Speakers have deprecated such conduct in the strongest terms. I hope, in view of that, that the hon. Gentleman will not persist.

§ Mr. Dalyell
If we are on the subject of normal courtesies— —

§ Mr. Raffan
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Dalyell
We had better understand that the normal courtesies were not observed in relation to Mr. Pat Chandler and other senior staff of BBC Scotland at Queen Margaret drive.

§ Mr. Raffan
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It is precisely because the normal courtesies have broken down in our society that I am raising these matters on the Floor of the House.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was only a short time ago—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will remember this well—that the hon. Gentleman attempted to raise the same matter in another Adjournment debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was present on that occasion. It was another Deputy Speaker who said that I needed to have the leave of both the hon. Member for Linlithgow—

§ Mr. Dalyell
Which I gave.

§ Mr. Cash
—and that of my right hon. and learned Friend to speak on that occasion. That leave was graciously given, but it seems that the hon. Gentleman, as I accused him on the occasion to which I have referred, is abusing the procedures of the House yet again. He is attempting to raise matters in a most disgraceful manner.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has raised a further point of order on which I can make no comment. I have made the view of the Chair entirely clear. I appeal again to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) not to persist.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Raffan
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
rose——

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)
Further to that point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Bermingham
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to point of order after point of order and I say to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that manners becometh man. It might help occasionally if words such as "devious" and goodness knows what else were not used.

§ Mr. Raffan
They are accurate.

§ Mr. Bermingham
I look to you, Mr. Speaker, to protect a Member who has a point about which he feels strongly and a principle that he holds dear. I notice that the Chair—I say this with great respect—has not sought to protect that Member's right to speak, even though his intervention is said to be an abuse of the processes of the House. The House would be a poorer place—I say this to the hon. Member for Delyn—

§ Mr. Raffan
rose——

§ Mr. Bermingham
Please remain seated for a moment. Thou hast spoken enough tonight, dear boy. This House would be a poorer place if the rights of ordinary Members to express a grievance were not allowed to be put into effect.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. These are not points of order. We cannot have a debate on points of order or on my rulings.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose——

§ Mr. Raffan
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Cash
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Forsyth
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I call the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

§ Mr. Forsyth
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can offer some guidance on the rights of Back Benchers. It seems that if the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is to persist in defying your clear guidance, second Adjournment debates in future might be threatened. This is a matter of considerable concern. Adjournment debates are one of the few vehicles that are open to Back Benchers who observe the normal courtesies to raise matters of great constituency importance. Perhaps you will guide us on the likely effect of the hon. Gentleman's discourtesy should he persist in going ahead despite your clear guidance and rulings.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose— —

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Adjournment debates are highly prized. They take place every day at the end of our parliamentary day and they are private Members' time. There are rules and conventions that have been laid down. An hon. Member who has the good fortune to have an Adjournment debate as a result of the ballot, or because of Mr. Speaker's selection, expects a Minister to be present to answer the debate. Ministers cannot be present to answer debates unless notice has been given. It is for that reason that the first Adjournment debate is arranged in the traditional way with which the House is familiar. There are well-established procedures and courtesies laid down for any further Adjournment debate. If those courtesies are not observed—I merely repeat this for the hon. Gentleman once more—successive Speakers have strongly deprecated the sort of conduct in which he is persisting. I appeal to him again not to pursue it. If he insists on pursuing it, I shall of course have to hear him.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The difficulty is that we are talking about conduct. The conduct and standards of the House have gone down. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned that there had been a previous debate. During 747 the previous debate we thought that no Minister had heard about the BBC raid until he heard about it on the news at 1 o'clock on Saturday. As between 2 February, when he made his first statement, and 13 February, somehow, in the middle of a Friday, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) heard that the Secretary of State for Scotland was indeed told that this was a breakdown of trust—

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I shall listen to points of order if they are points of order. I do not think we need to go around the course yet again. If there is a different point of order, I shall listen to it.

§ Mr. Raffan
I seek your guidance, once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) rose, he said, to protect the rights of hon. Members. I ask you to protect the right of an hon. Member— my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, if he had been given notice of the debate, would have been here to reply to it. How can we possibly have an Adjournment debate, as opposed to an Adjournment monologue, if my right hon. and learned Friend is not here to reply to it? It clearly is an abuse of the House.
There is nothing democratic about the lack of procedure upon which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has embarked. He is trying to grab a few cheap headlines by ensuring that a balanced view is not presented both to the House and the country as a whole by ensuring that my right hon. and learned Friend is not here to reply to his speech point by point. What the hon. Member for Linlithgow cannot stand and dislikes more than anything else is a rebuttal of the spurious points that he makes in debates such as this.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. All that I can do is to repeat the point that I have already made on several occasions about the strong views that have been expressed by successive Speakers, but I have no power to prevent the hon. Gentleman from addressing the House if, in spite of what I have said, he intends to do so.

§ Mr. Cash
rose—

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I shall hear the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It will be of benefit to the House if I ask some questions. Did the official still think, throughout the Saturday and Sunday, that there was no need to contact his or her Secretary of State?

§ Mr. Forsyth
rose——

§ Mr. Cash
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am listening to a point of order.

§ Mr. Forsyth
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already raised with you the rights of Back Benchers. As I understand it, if any hon. Member makes an application to Mr. Speaker for an Adjournment debate which has already been applied for by another hon. Member he is refused. The hon. Gentleman has not only not had the courtesy to inform the Secretary of State that 748 he planned to raise this matter but has ignored Mr. Speaker. What will be the position—I do not know whether any hon. Member will be in this position—of an hon. Member who may have asked for an Adjournment debate on this subject in the normal way? Surely these procedures have been ignored, and this could create considerable embarrassment and difficulty. Where do we stand on this matter?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I do not think that I can deal with a hypothetical situation. I understand the point that the hon. Member has made, the difficulties that could easily arise and the possible threat to the high value that the House places on Adjourment debates. As I have said, I have no power to refuse to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he persists in addressing the House.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The only likely explanation—

§ Mr. Cash
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have been reading "Erskine May", for reasons that may become apparent. On page 290 it deals with motions for the Adjournment of the House. Following the point that you made with regard to the importance of these questions, it states unequivocally that The motion 'That this House do now adjourn', moved when there is no question before the House, is a form of substantive motion, but is more conveniently treated apart. The substantive motion for the Adjournment may be used for discussing many subjects other than the termination of a sitting. Once such a motion has been agreed to, a sitting is necessarily terminated; but it frequently happens that an adjournment motion is moved without any intention of pressing it to a conclusion, and it is consequently withdrawn when its purpose has been served". My point is that questions relating to the Adjournment of the House are frequently governed by motions. It may be that on this occasion no motion is being moved. On the other hand, this is an example of an hon. Member quite clearly, without regard for the rules of the House, trying—as I accused him the other day—to grab the headlines to raise a question that he knows perfectly well he would be unable to raise in the normal course of events, and without a Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), being present. The embarrassment that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is seeking to inflict upon the House, and that we have every intention of preventing him from inflicting, is a filibuster of its own kind. It is an abuse of the procedures of this House and we have absolutely no intention of allowing the hon. Gentleman to drag the procedures of this House through the mire of his own speculations and groundless allegations.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to point out to him and to the House that we are on the Adjournment motion. That is one of the dificulties that we are facing.Mr. Dalyell.

§ Mr. Dalyell
It was all part of the preordained plan—

§ Mr. Raffan
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what you have just said and in view of the valid point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I wonder whether I may ask you to ask Mr. Speaker to make a ruling on this particular event. The position is not clear. The Chair has made it quite clear that it deprecates the kind of behaviour upon which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has embarked—a total bypass of the procedures of this 749 House, going behind the Chair's back and not ensuring that a member of the Cabinet is present to reply to the debate. As this is such a grave abuse of our procedures and such an offence to the Chair and to hon. Members, surely I am right in asking that tonight's disgraceful events should be brought directly to the attention of Mr. Speaker so that he can make a clear ruling to the House and we are not faced once again with such an appalling, disgraceful and embarrassing situation.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I shall certainly report to Mr. Speaker what has happened tonight. I cannot comment further on that, but again I remind the House that the Chair and all hon. Members are bound by the rules and conventions of this House. If they are not correctly observed, it will be a very poor day for the House of Commons.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Was there perhaps some misunderstanding between the civil servants of the kind with which we became so familiar—

Division No. 92]	[9.54 pm
AYES
Nil
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. Michael Forsyth and
Mr. Keith Raffan.

NOES
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Dalyell, Tam	Wallace, James
Faulds, Andrew
Fraser, J. (Norwood)	Tellers for the Noes:
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Mr. John Maxton and
Robertson, George	Mr. Gerald Bermingham.