§ Mr. SpeakerI wish to make a brief statement to the House about Standing Order No. 20 applications. I received today notice from four hon. Members that they wished to apply for emergency debates under Standing Order No. 20, but in no case was the application based on an urgent fact raised at the first opportunity. I have informed the hon. Members concerned—there is nothing new about this—that I regret that I cannot hear their applications.
These are important matters for the House. The right to make a three-minute submission to me on a new and urgent matter at 3.30 pm is a valuable and very important opportunity for Back Bench Members. I am anxious that it should not be devalued or threatened, as might be the case if the procedure were abused. I hope that I will have the support of the whole House in declining to hear applications that do not even get to first base.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I will hear Mr. Skinner first.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to know on how many previous occasions before television was introduced in the Chamber you made a statement of this kind after various Back-Bench Members had made applications under Standing Order No. 20. There have been many occasions when one hon. Member or two, three or even four hon. Members have made applications and it was made clear that the applications were turned down or not accepted. However, from memory, I believe that this is the first occasion that you have ruled out such applications in this manner. It looks to me like a television fix. I want to know the reason why.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The whole House might be interested in this. My answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is that I have seen hon. Members on average twice a week about their Standing Order No. 20 applications. I could not see them all today because of my other commitments. Therefore, I thought it wise to take this opportunity to make a general statement. As I said, all the hon. Members concerned have received a letter explaining why I was unable to hear their submissions.
§ Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from Question Time. In response to question No. 6 about extradition, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) sought to refer to the President of South Korea in distinctly derogatory terms. It is clear from "Erskine May" that opprobrious reflections on heads of state are against the orders of this House. As the president is here on a visit at the Government's behest, it seems rather unfortunate that this matter should be on the record. Everyone seeking to export to South Korea—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We all know the rules about that. I must confess that I did not quite hear it in that light. If the hon. Gentleman is right, I regret that it was said in that way. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to the attention of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Once again today I have had a great many applications to take part in the subsequent debate, which is limited to three hours. It will be very difficult to call all the hon. Members who want to speak if there are so many points of order, however I will try to deal with them if they are matters for me.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the four hon. Members whose Standing Order No. 20 applications were refused, I do not challenge your decision or your statement, but I ask you to reflect on two matters. First, Standing Order No. 20 requires that the application should refer to a
specific and important matter that requires urgent consideration".It is particularly important to Opposition Members that such an opportunity exists. You will confirm that the Government can come forward with any number of statements on any day and you are not required to give permission for statements to be made. For Opposition Members a Standing Order No. 20 application is most important. It is limited and it enables us to draw attention to urgent matters. To offer an alternative by raising matters at business questions is wholly inadequate.Secondly—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's first point. We must get on. The hon. Gentleman knows why I could not allow his application, but I am sure that he would not wish me to say why at this moment. I urge the House to understand that I am seeking to protect this procedure, which I absolutely agree is a matter of prime importance for Back-Bench Members. The trouble is that if it is abused in any way, new regulations may be introduced, which would perhaps mean that such applications are heard later in the day, which would be to the detriment of Back-Bench Members.
§ Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that your decision on Standing Order No. 20 applications will be widely welcomed? Such applications are in danger of becoming an abuse of the procedures of the House and, what is more, monumental bores.
§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand what you have said. You will know that I am one of the hon. Members who attempted to make a Standing Order No. 20 application today. The matter is so important that I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I cannot hear the hon. Lady's application, for reasons that I have privately explained to her and which she has also received in the form of a letter.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the last years of the Labour Government, when the Conservatives were in opposition, there were two or three Standing Order No. 9 applications every day. As you well know, at that time it was believed that it was an organised campaign, but it was not regarded as an abuse of the House. It was felt that, to hold the then Government to account, it was a legitimate way of raising issues. But, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me underline to the House yet again that I am seeking to protect this important 715 opportunity for Back-Bench Members. I look at every application on its merits and in accordance with the Standing Orders by which I am bound. It is not possible for me as Speaker to go beyond the criteria laid down in the Standing Orders. That is what I am seeking to point out. If the House does not like the Standing Orders, I suggest that the Procedure Committee should look at them again and give different guidelines to the Speaker. At the moment, I can rule only on the basis of the guidelines that have been laid down.
§ Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the hon. Members who wanted to present a Standing Order No. 20 application, I believe that 500 jobs in my constituency—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has an early-day motion on the Order Paper on this very matter. If he looks at the criteria he will realise that he cannot raise a matter under Standing Order No. 20 if he already has an early-day motion on the Order Paper. It must be about something that is new and has happened today. His early-day motion appeared two days ago.
§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one in the House challenges your judgment, and hon. Members agree with you about the abuse, but because of the television lights it is likely that there will be more applications under Standing Order No. 20. Is it right that the Opposition Front Bench should be allowed to make such applications at any time that might suit them? This House is for all hon. Members of Parliament and the Opposition Front Bench should not abuse the system. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) may be new to this game, but she is not new to the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the House will allow me to deal with one matter at a time.
The House should look carefully at the Select Committee report, which deals with the whole question of Standing Order No. 20 applications. It suggests that the procedure is an opportunity for Back Benchers to raise matters of urgent interest. Quite simply, the reason for that view is that Front-Bench spokesmen have an opportunity, on regular Opposition days, to raise matters of great importance.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am on my feet. I am extremely anxious that the House should preserve the Back-Bench opportunities provided by Standing Order No. 20 applications.
§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise your difficulties, but some Conservative Members appear to have short memories. In the Session 1978–79, a very short Session, there were no fewer than 66 applications under the Standing Order procedure, and a great many of them were from Conservative Members. Let there be no cant about that.
I wish to support what you have said, Mr. Speaker, in two respects. First, it would not be in the interests of any 716 hon. Member if the Standing Order No. 20 procedure were to be moved from 3.30 pm. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would not agree to any proposal to move the procedure from its present time. Secondly, although the procedure is attractive to Back-Bench Members for obvious reasons, there is nothing in the Standing Orders that precludes Front-Bench spokesmen from using the procedure if that is legitimate.
In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and notwithstanding your ruling, she has a legitimate case in attempting to seek time in the House to debate the terrible famine in Ethiopia, and I support her in that.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that we should now move on.
The shadow Leader of the House was right to suggest that the Standing Order No. 20 procedure does not preclude Front-Bench Members. I do not in any way disagree with the importance of the matter raised by the hon. Lady, but I am bound to remind the House that we debated foreign affairs on Friday, that there will be business questions tomorrow—when the hon. Lady could ask for a debate, and may possibly get one—and there will be Overseas Development Administration questions on Monday.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. As I mentioned the hon. Lady, I shall call her.
§ Mrs. ClwydFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The necessity urgently to debate the matter today is because people are dying from famine and hunger today. There has been no opportunity in the House to discuss a matter about which the British public are greatly concerned.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady must not seek to raise her application in this way. I know the seriousness of the position in Ethiopia and am sure that it was as serious last Friday and that it will be as serious on Monday. I hope that she will have then an opportunity to raise it—[Interruption.] Order. If the House wants to persist with these matters, we shall never get any business done.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am bound by the Standing Orders as they are. If the House does not like them, I suggest that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who is in his place, should look into the matter and provide the Chair with different guidelines—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am on my feet. I call Mr. Andrew Faulds.
§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not a simple answer to your quandary about the proliferation of Standing Order No. 20 applications and the possible abuse of them be to remove from the Chamber these ghastly television cameras?
§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)This is a House of Commons matter and I agree with the hon. Member for 717 Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), because it is true that, on the whole, Opposition Back Benchers rather than Government Back Benchers find it convenient to use the Standing Order No. 20 procedures—or the Standing Order No. 10 procedures, as they used to be. We are reaching the position in this ghastly television era when your reference, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Orders will prove to be out of date because we shall have completely to rewrite the Standing Orders of the House. May I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that those concerned with the ordering of the proceedings of the House should soon drew up a list of our traditional procedures, all of which are threatened by the presence in the House of television cameras?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House has made a decision about television cameras.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, I am not hearing any further points of order—[Interruption.] No, I am not hearing any further points of order on this matter.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf it is a different point of order, I shall hear it, but it must be a different point of order.
§ Mr. DalyellYes, it is.
§ Mr. SpeakerThan I shall take it.
§ Mr. DalyellYou have used the words "preserve" and "protect" several times, Mr. Speaker, so may we ask for some information as to whom you are protecting and preserving us from? Who is the enemy in this situation and what exactly have they suggested? Who has suggested that this should be moved to 10 o'clock? Should we not know—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. These suggestions have been made —[Interruption.] Order. If the message has not got through, I suppose that I must tell the House yet again that I am seeking to preserve a very important opportunity for Back Benchers. I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for what he said in that connection.