§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)I wish to raise with you, Madam Speaker, a point of order of which I gave you notice: the apparent conflict between the rulings that you gave yesterday and that Mr. Speaker Weatherill gave some time ago on Standing Order No. 20 and its terms.
In exchanges yesterday, you said:
The matter in question must be urgent, and it must relate to new developments, such as a change of policy."—[Official Report, 13 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 834.]Standing Order No. 20 states:On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday a Member rising in his place at the commencement of public business may propose, in an application lasting not more than three minutes, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the ruling that you gave yesterday, which was initially given by Mr. Speaker Weatherill, does not give that permissive right to hon. Members to move an application for Standing Order No. 20. If your ruling is accepted—I have no reason to think that it is not—it requires amendment of Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I should like advice from you on how such an amendment can be secured, because, unless an amendment is made, it seems that Standing Order No. 20 is in direct conflict with the ruling that you made yesterday and that made by Mr. Speaker Weatherill some years ago.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your letter, and I wish to raise a point of order arising from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Many of us can recall when hon. Members, whether the occupants of the Chair liked it or not, stated at your office that they were going to make an application and, as far as I can recall—the Clerks will no doubt advise if this is wrong—there were no restrictions.
During the 1974–79 period, Conservative Members, when in opposition, used to make four or five applications each day. No doubt on each occasion the Members involved took the view that they stood no chance of succeeding, but there were no restrictions on them trying.
I accept entirely that it was not you, Madam Speaker, but your predecessor who made it more difficult to make applications. However, with all due respect, I wish to ask you when that change was made and what opportunity the House was given to decide, on a vote, whether that should be the case. Undoubtedly, there has been a change, and it is now far more difficult to get permission to move an application under Standing Order No. 20. The matter should be put to the House and a vote taken accordingly.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)There is an ironic side to this whole episode in connection with Speaker Weatherill. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that, in 1974–79, when a Labour Government were in office, we had to put up with four or five applications a day for SO9s, as they were then called, from Tory Members. The deputy Chief Whip of the Tory party at that time was none other than the man who was later to become Speaker Weatherill, and he organised the SO9s.
§ Madam SpeakerThat is hardly a point of order for the Chair.
§ Madam SpeakerIs it the same point?
§ Mr. CanavanNo.
§ Madam SpeakerIn that case, I shall respond to the point of order. I am not able to relax the practice of the Chair in this matter. Contrary to what some hon. Members said yesterday, that practice has been applied consistently for several years. If I relaxed the practice, the House would be exposed to a spate of three-minute applications which had no possibility of success because they bore no relation to the criteria that I have to apply.
Those criteria are that the matter must be specific, important and urgent, and must be matter for which a Minister has responsibility. Of course, I shall continue to offer constructive suggestions to hon. Members who make Standing Order No. 20 applications so that they might pursue the matter, which I quite understand concerns them, in some other way.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others have said, there was a spate of applications in 1975. By what alchemy, at what point and when was the change made? Who decided it? On reflection, some of us think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right, and that this has all been done by the powers that be since television has been brought in. What it is all about is television at prime time. The question is succinct: how and at what moment was the change made and by whom, and was it made with the authority of the House?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman was a Member at that time. If he and all of us reflect, we will remember that, in the period 1978–79, which hon. Members are recalling there was a spate of urgent issues. We all have long enough memories to understand what they were. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about the urgency requirement in a Standing Order No. 20 application, he will find that it is there for him to read. If the House wishes to change our procedures or the Standing Order, which is quite specific, there are ways and means, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for him to do so.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I must take other points of order. I have dealt with the previous one. Some hon. Members are taking up the time of the House on a day that is crucial to other hon. Members.
§ Mr. CanavanOn a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is different from the last one. One of your many onerous duties is to chair the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 states quite clearly that, in making recommendations about the drawing up of parliamentary constituency boundaries, the commission must have regard to local government area boundaries.
Traditionally in Scotland, local government area boundaries have been determined after very careful consideration and, in many cases, after public consultation by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Major restructuring involving the creation of 983 new authorities or the abolition of existing ones, has usually been done after careful consideration by some form of independent commission.
However, for the proposals that will be before the House this afternoon, that has not been done. There have been accusations of gerrymandering, and it would put you, Madam Speaker, in an invidious position if the work of your commission, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland, were prejudiced in any way by the implementation of the gerrymandered local government proposals that will be before the House today.
Will you use your position as Chair of the Scottish Parliamentary Boundary Commission and your good offices to try to bring about some kind of independent commission to study this matter carefully and see that the proposals that will be before the House today are scrapped, or at least shelved until the whole matter of Scottish local government is given the fullest possible consideration by an independent commission chaired by somebody who is neutral and fair-minded, such as your good self?
§ Madam SpeakerThese are still only proposals. The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting points which are better raised in the debate, which, if we ever reach it, will be shortly. He should put his concerns to the Minister at that time.
§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to the amendment tabled today in the name of the Prime Minister, which relates to the debate that we are about to have on Scottish local government? It refers to the Government's White Paper, which contains proposals to set up
a single tier of strong and acceptable all-purpose authorities.If you read the Government's White Paper, you will find that they are proposing to remove water, police and fire services from those single-tier authorities. Therefore, the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister is misleading and inaccurate, and on that basis will you rule it out of order?
§ Madam SpeakerAs soon as we start the debate, I will give my ruling on the amendment, but we are not in the debate yet.
§ Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)You will recall, Madam Speaker that, some time ago at Question Time, I said to the Minister for Energy that the President of the Board of Trade had dipped his hand in the till of the miners' pensions. The Minister, in the House, vehemently denied that, but in this morning's paper it was admitted that Ministers had urged British Coal to raid the pension funds.
984 Has the Minister for Energy offered to come to the House to make an apology—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. What appears in newspapers has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair of the House. All 650 Members could bring in their newspapers and ask me whether I thought they were correct. It is a terrible abuse of the time of the House.
§ Mr. EnrightIt is the court reporter.
§ Madam SpeakerI do not give a—[Laughter.] I do not care whether it is the court reporter or the most junior reporter on my local paper; it is not an issue for the Chair or for the House.
I had a point f order yesterday from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to which I wish to reply. The hon. Gentleman raised with me the effect of article 21 of the Act of Union on the implementation of the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland. As the House is aware, I rule on the orderliness of the business before the House and not on hypothetical questions. I am satisfied that the motion before the House today is perfectly in order. Consideration of the orderliness of a future Local Government (Scotland) Bill will have to wait until the text of the Bill is available and I have been able to see it.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Your ruling is slightly ambiguous. Scottish Members would like to know whether the determination of Scottish local authority boundaries and structure and the future of water supplies will be dictated by the votes of English Members of Parliament in the House, regardless of and notwithstanding the Act of Union.
I thank you for your consideration of the matter, but you will appreciate its importance. If the conventions of the United Kingdom Parliament dictate that English Conservative Members, many rolling in from the liquid dungeons of this place at the end of the day, dictate that—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I patiently listened to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. He put it to me clearly, and I took some time in considering it. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and we all determine together what happens in the various parts of this nation.
§ Mr. SalmondFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. There can be no further point of order. I carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's point of order yesterday. I have gone into it thoroughly, and I answered it today by saying that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and every one of us is entitled to make a decision on what comes before the House.