§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have already given you notice of my intention to raise a point of order concerning a Scottish Office memorandum sent by the parliamentary clerk to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). The parliamentary clerk informed the hon. Gentleman that he would be tabling a question for him on transport subsidies of the "good news" type, saying that it should not present him with any difficulties. The answer duly appeared at column 466 of Hansard of 17 December. The parliamentary question's signature was indistinct.
Having referred to earlier instances in Hansard, I know that former Speakers have taken a very serious view of such matters. For example, Hansard of 20 November 1975 refers to a similar incident involving two former Members—George Cunningham and Jeremy Thorpe. On that occasion, the Speaker was unequivocal in his statement that no Member can table a Question for another Member unless he has the agreement of that Member—in other words, unless that second Member wishes the Question to be tabled.
In this case, it was a civil servant who tabled the Question. That is completely against the rules of the House and also against the civil service compromise, being in pursuit of the objectives not of the Government but of political masters. Given that disgraceful state of affairs, I am referring the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure. But, more than anything, I seek your view and your guidance, Madam Speaker, on what should be done to ensure that hon. Members are protected and the integrity of the House is maintained.
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Member has raised what is potentially a very serious matter. I should like an opportunity further to examine the circumstances, after which I shall give a considered ruling.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the problems we face in Tayside with the weather. You will also be aware that I made an application under Standing Order No. 20. Can you tell me whether I did anything that was out of order? If so, can you tell me how I can go about changing my ways?
§ Madam SpeakerWhat the hon. Gentleman did was in order. He also knows that I seriously consider such matters, and I give no reasons for my decision. I know that he will not press me.
§ Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a serious aspect to the point raised. Has the Secretary of State for Social Security informed you whether he intends to come to the House to make a statement on the very severe weather conditions which have affected Scotland and many other parts of Britain in the past few days, leaving many elderly and infirm people trapped in their homes—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman need not argue the case with me. I can answer him and the whole House: no Minister has informed me that he wishes to make a statement.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As part of the changed ways of the House, brought about by Mr. Speaker Weatherill but not practised by Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd and many of his predecessors, one could make an application under Standing Order No. 20 on the unsatisfactory nature of a statement in answer to a private notice question or questions themselves.
Against that background, I should like to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 on the imminent military action to be taken against Iraq. The House will know that there are deep issues as to whether the Gulf allies, especially Egypt and Bahrain, have in any way—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Let me put this to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise him regularly in the House which allows him to put across his opinion. I value that, and I know that he values it. However, he cannot now argue the case with me again. No new facts have arisen whereby he can now make an application under Standing Order No. 20. He made such an application earlier today which I could not hear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept what I have to say.
§ Mr. Dalyellrose—
§ Madam SpeakerIs it further to the point of order?
§ Mr. DalyellYes, and there is also a point of principle. We cannot know whether ministerial answers will be satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In the case of the Foreign Secretary, a number of my hon. Friends gasped at the answer that he gave to a factual question. We could not know that the Secretary of State would not answer the question about Egypt and Bahrain, but evade it.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not argue the policy with me. New factors must arise before I can allow an application to be made under Standing Order No. 20. New factors have not arisen, and the hon. Gentleman cannot argue the matter with me now. He can make an application under Standing Order No. 20 tomorrow or at any other time, but not now.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
§ Madam SpeakerNo, there is nothing further to that point of order. I have dealt with the matter.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)Further to the point of order on the weather conditions in Scotland, Madam Speaker. I refer to the issue of applications made under Standing Order No. 20 and the allocation of them. You will appreciate that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was not the only hon. Member to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 today and to have his application rejected.
When severe weather conditions prevailed in London and the south of England some two years ago, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security gave contradictory statements daily in the House until new regulations were tabled—a minor improvement. Many of us who represent Scottish constituencies now face the position in which many of our pensioners and disabled—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady is trying my patience. I have already dealt with that matter. She put in 923 a Standing Order No. 20 application to me earlier. She knows full well that I cannot hear it. She must not pursue the matter with me now.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the private notice question on Iraq a Conservative Member said that all Members of this House supported military action. You rightly called some Opposition Members to refute that and say that it would not be done in their name. But, of course, that did not give the opportunity to all Members of Parliament who oppose such military action, such as myself, to put it on the record that we oppose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is trying to prolong the debate. I do my very best to call Members representing a variety of opinion in this House. That is what it is all about.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that President Bush has just authorised an air attack on Iraq. We have just had a statement from the Minister of State but that news was not given to us. I wonder whether exceptionally you could extend for a further period questions to the Minister so that we can find out whether the action is taken in compliance with security—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I do not have that authority.
§ Mr. WinnickOn a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give some guidance on Standing Order No. 20. As you know, at one time—certainly when my party was in government—there were six or seven applications a day at least on some occasions. There were few days, if any, when the Conservative Opposition did not have the opportunity—unsuccessfully on most occasions—of submitting three or four applications. You were here at the time in another capacity and you were aware of that practice.
I am also aware that your predecessor made certain changes to the interpretation of the Standing Order, which presumably you also apply. May I bring it to your attention that in 1979 a debate took place on the Floor of the House on a recommendation by the then Procedure Committee that Members should not be in a position to make an application for an emergency debate? Fortunately, that recommendation was defeated. When a Back Bencher makes a Standing Order No. 20 application it usually means that you will hear it and no more. Perhaps unfortunately, it is rare that an application is successful.
May I have your guidance, Madam Speaker? Are you saying that it would be useful, perhaps before one submits an application to your office, to accept that it has become a rare occurrence even to be in a position to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20?
Although my views are diametrically opposite to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has unsuccessfully made an application, surely the subject that he wished to raise is of great significance. As a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, does he not have a right like the rest of us at least to put a case to you for an emergency debate?
§ Madam SpeakerSo long as the basic requirements of the Standing Order are met, that is perfectly in order. However, Standing Order No. 20 applications are made to me regularly by many Members every day. As Speaker, I have to determine whether the criteria are met so that the application might be heard. I read many applications every day of a working week.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that if the Government seek to make a statement tonight you will grant permission for a Minister to make a statement about any possible aggressive action by the United States, using the name of the United Nations or any other combination? Will the annunciators give adequate notice to Members that a statement will be made tonight, should the Government make a statement? In the view of many Members, they ought to make a statement.
§ Madam SpeakerThat is somewhat hypothetical at this stage, but as usual I will look extremely carefully at any request that is made to me at any time. We must now proceed.