HC Deb 19 October 1994 vol 248 cc395-6 11.11 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley (York)

I present a petition on behalf of hundreds of my constituents who oppose many of the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I share that opposition. It reads as follows: To the House of Commons The Petition of residents of York and neighbouring Parliamentary constituencies declares that the Criminal Justice Bill threatens to infringe basic civil liberties, which ordinary democratic citizens have fought for throughout history, and that the bill will remove the right to legitimate peaceful protest. It will give the police service unrestrained powers of arrest, without the need for any offence to have actually taken place, and it will deny the citizens' right to silence. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do not allow the Criminal Justice Bill to be enacted. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, et cetera.

The petition is signed by my constituent, Mr. Dhara Thompson, and by 815 other residents of my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in North Yorkshire.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Bermingham

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now that the House is silent and now that the occupant of the Chair has acquiesced in the Government Whip's application that consideration of the Lords amendments be adjourned in the middle of a series of points of order involving grave allegations, can you advise me whether it is right that the occupant of the Chair should acquiesce—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not raising the point of order on which I have already ruled.

Mr. Bermingham

No. I hope that you will accept that I say this with courtesy, but I am challenging the way in which business proceeded this evening. Some other hon. Members might have had something to say and perhaps sought to catch your eye, but the Government adjourned the proceedings, thus, in effect, ensuring that the purpose of raising the points of order was lost. Is it in accordance with the rules of the House that those of us who believe in the democratic process should have our remarks curtailed by a motion to adjourn the proceedings, leaving only the Adjournment debate, and thus denying us the opportunity to continue to debate the serious matters that were raised earlier?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With the greatest respect, we have not had the Adjournment debate yet. We have debated the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, dealt with motion No. 2 on the Order Paper and heard one of two petitions. We have not reached the Adjournment debate yet.

Mr. Bermingham

I did not say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not the point that I am making.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is the hon. Gentleman making his point now?

Mr. Bermingham

Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not mean to denigrate in any way the business yet to come, but I am saying that the serious business of the House has been adjourned, and that caused a stoppage of the points of order on matters raised by hon. Members earlier. When such a situation arises, is it right that Government Whips should seek to adjourn the House, and thus curtail debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

All that I can advise the hon. Gentleman is that, as of this moment, no Adjournment of the House has been sought. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been, but the only motion moved by the Government Whip was that we should adjourn further consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, not that we should adjourn the House. Indeed, had the hon. Gentleman wished to raise a new point of order he could have caught my eye, but I never saw him move. I looked round the Chamber, nobody else moved, and I have now ruled.