§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker.
Last night, at about half-past nine, I infringed the courtesies and conventions but not, as the patient and courteous Deputy Speaker said, the rules of the House. There used to be a convention and courtesy that if Ministers made statements, as the Home Secretary did—I believe that he did so in total good faith—on 3 February to the effect that
no Minister knew of the steps that the police were proposing"—[0fficial Report. 3 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 823.]—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member gave me notice of his point of order, but he must not continue the debate that he attempted to raise last night.
§ Mr. DalyellThere is an issue here. I was concerned—as other hon. Members might be—with a sensitive issue. You rightly say, Sir, that notice of an intention to raise an Adjournment debate should normally be given before 8 o'clock. In a serious Adjournment debate, it is clearly infinitely better that a Minister should be present to reply. However, it is another practice—I am not making a party issue of it. because Labour Whips did exactly the same thing—that if an hon. Member wishes to raise a sensitive issue, the Government will ensure, somehow, that the debate is extended.
Let me amplify that.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Where is the point of order for me? I cannot possibly be responsible for any accusations of that kind.
§ Mr. DalyellThis is not an accusation. It is a fact that three Adjournment debates had been applied for by Conservative Members. I was told, very courteously as always, in your Office, Sir, that there was no chance of my getting an Adjournment debate. I accepted that. Lo and behold, what happened? By chance, I peeped in and saw that one of the Adjournment debates—on the subject of the safety of transport—was not to take place. In fact, those Adjournment debates were applied for precisely so that other hon. Members could not raise more sensitive issues. That is how Whips behave. This is not very good for the House of Commons. That is why I am asking that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee.
I wanted to contrast what had happened with the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) from the Secretary of State for Scotland. There are people here today who came all the way from Glasgow to complain about what happened. Many people are deeply concerned about this issue. It is not a trivial matter. If it is stopped and gagged in the House by a subterfuge, that action should be considered by the Procedure Committee.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. On the last point, if the hon. Member believes that the Procedure Committee should consider the matter, he should send a submission to the Committee. I am sure that the Procedure Committee will be glad to consider it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me deal with one matter at a time. I confirm that I entirely support what Mr. Deputy Speaker did last night. I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that in this place we proceed according to well-known rules and conventions. The hon. Member admitted last night that, for his own personal reasons, he did not observe those rules and conventions. I remind the hon. Member and the whole House that a debate is not a unilateral expression of views but an exchange of views between hon. Members and Ministers. Following last night's proceedings, I am glad to have an opportunity to reaffirm that principle.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take Mr. Skinner first.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The most important feature to emerge from the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and your reply, Sir, is that my hon. Friend declared to the House that he attempted to raise a second Adjournment debate. That is a common feature of our proceedings when it is likely that the House will rise before 10 o'clock. My hon. Friend then said that he was told that there were three Tories in the queue. The most deplorable aspect is that, apparently, the Tories had connived to stop my hon. Friend from expressing his view about a matter that was uncomfortable to the Government. If, for instance, one or two Tory Members queued at the beginning of a parliamenary Session to present 10-minute Bills—so that hon. Members who had stayed up all night were not able to present the first 10-minute Bill—I have no doubt that a Speaker would say that that was deplorable action because it was gagging some hon. Members. I should have thought that the Speaker's job—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I say to the hon. Member, and especially to the Opposition, that this is an Opposition day on which there are to be two important debates. I shall hear the points of order that hon. Members wish to raise, but I can add nothing to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
As for what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just said on this matter—[Interruption.] Order, please. My Office would not say that Tories or Labour Members had won Adjournment debates. It would simply say that three hon. Members had applied for Adjournment debates. I have no doubt that, if asked, my Office would say who they were. It is a question of being first in the queue.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that yesterday, after Question Time, I asked you whether there was any way in which certain matters of great urgency could be raised. You told me that hon. Members could apply for an Adjournment debate. I made inquiries at about 6.45 pm yesterday when it appeared that business would finish before ten o'clock. I discovered, like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), that three Members had applied for Adjournment debates. In those circumstances, I came to the conclusion that there was no way in which I could persuade the Minister to reply to a debate even if I were to go to your Office. When you 778 say, Mr. Speaker, that this was not organised or that your Office would not know, I accept that entirely. What we know is that, in order to avoid us raising matters, the Government deliberately made sure that the slots were filled, and when the time came for those Members in whose name those slots were to be given an Adjournment debate, they were not here. This point, Mr. Speaker, is directed at you. Was that not an abuse, in order to prevent myself and my hon. Friend from raising a topic?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am in receipt of information that the hon. Gentleman was not in receipt of yesterday—how many hon. Members had expressed an interest in a subsequent debate. I gave a broad hint that there was a good chance that the hon. Member for Walsall, North might be able to put his subject in. If the hon. Member did not do that until seven o'clock, I cannot help him.
§ Mr. Keith Raffan (Delyn)rose—
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me deal with one at a time. I will take Mr. Raffan first.
§ Mr. RaffanFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If anybody tried to gag anybody last night, it was the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) trying to gag my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the Secretary of State for Scotland, by not ensuring that he gave prior notice of that debate so that he could attend the House to reply. It was an Adjournment monologue, not an Adjournment debate.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate the passage on page 371 of "Erskine May", as quoted by Mr. Deputy Speaker last night, that successive Speakers have deprecated an abuse of procedure to this extent by a Member trying to raise an issue on the Adjournment without giving prior notice to the Minister so that he can be present to reply, and therefore give a balanced view to the House and the country.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have already said, but I repeat for the benefit of the House, that two hours' notice has always been considered appropriate. If hon. Members persist in their points of order, it will take time out of the next debate, and I must not be held responsible for complaints about that.
§ Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I think I was one of the few Members present last night—no Opposition Members who have spoken today were present then. A matter of substance arises which causes concern to the Government Back Benchers who value the Adjournment debate as a means of raising constituency matters of considerable importance.
Although Mr. Deputy Speaker made it quite clear that he could not stop the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) from abusing the procedure last night, that has left some concern among Government Back Benchers about the Adjournment debate system. Will the procedures for obtaining an Adjournment debate be reviewed? As I understand it, if one follows the normal courtesies, one is not allowed to apply for an Adjournment debate on a subject that has already been applied for by 779 another hon. Member. If hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow abuse the procedure and do not observe the normal courtesies, those hon. Members who follow the procedure could be cheated out of raising matters of considerable concern. There is a matter of substance here. The hon. Member for Linlithgow, in pursuing his vendetta against the Scottish Office, has abused the procedures of the House, and he should apologise.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs this on the same point?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursYes. Can I ask you a simple question? Do you appreciate the distinction that my hon. Friends are trying to draw, between custom and practice and rules? Is it not true that we are dealing only with custom and practice. and that any Member of the House is entitled to stand at the Government Dispatch Box and answer a debate? Any hon. Member of the House could have taken upon himself the duty of replying to the debate of my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS. "No."] Yes—within our rules, that is the case. Will you confirm that that is the case, Mr. Speaker, so that Government Members who do not understand the rules, can learn?
§ Mr. Meadowcroftrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerIs this further to the same point of order?
§ Mr. MeadowcroftYes, Sir. Is not the problem the rigidity of the rule about having to apply for such an Adjournment debate before 8 pm? One understands why notice should be given, but if an hon. Member applies before 8 pm and then withdraws, the rigidity of the rule is called into question. Might not those who wanted to have that debate at least have been given some indication that a previous debate had been withdrawn? It can only have been withdrawn within minutes of having been applied for. It was certainly known at 9 pm that it would be withdrawn later.
§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be correct to say that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is quite wrong? It is not just a question of the exact procedure and exact rules; it is also a question of the conventions of the House, by which the House operates. An abuse of those conventions is every bit as important as the breach of the rules themselves.
§ Mr. MaddenOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOn the same point?
§ Mr. MaddenNo, a separate point.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall take it later. May I deal with one thing at a time?
I confirm to the House again that this is a convention, as the hon. Member for Workington has said, and as Mr. Deputy Speaker said last night several times. The Chair cannot stop the hon. Member for Linlithgow if he persists in speaking. However, it is the convention, as I have already stated, that in a debate a reply should be given. It is perfectly possible, I suppose, for a reply to be given from the Back Benches, but when we talk about a reply we normally mean a reply from the ministerial Bench.
Later—
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)Further to the points of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman speaks from the Front Bench, so I shall take his point of order. However, I must say that it is bound to take time from the subsequent debate.
§ Mr. WilliamsThis is important to the House. as you will appreciate, Sir. Private Members' time is desperately sought and keenly competed for within the House and it is highly valued by all individual Members. In the case of a normal Adjournment debate the name of the hon. Member appears each week and we know who is to have the Adjournment debate, what the subject is to be and the Member's constituents know who is due to speak.
In the events last night, several unnamed Members have apparently had time available which many other hon. Members would have valued. The House does not know who was responsible for that discourtesy to the House and, equally, their constituents do not know that those hon. Members lost an opportunity to make representations in the House on their behalf. Since it is not the normal procedure for applying for an Adjournment debate, is there any way in which we can obtain the identity of those hon. Members who last night failed to turn up for their Adjournment debates?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have already answered that. In any event, the hon. Gentleman must know that those tactics are of long standing. Whenever there is opposed private business, there is always the chance that it might be concluded more quickly than anticipated—less than three hours—and that opportunities may therefore arise for a second or sometimes even third Adjournment debate. That is exactly what happened last night. I repeat that my Office accepts applications for additional Adjournment debates on the basis of first come, first opportunity. It is not concerned with the side of the House on which an hon. Member may sit.