§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to seek your help about the procedure in today's debate. I understand that the Government will open the debate by moving a motion that this House do now adjourn. Such a motion is debatable and allows a vote so that hon. Members who believe that the House should continue to sit can express that view in the Lobby. However, such a vote does not permit those who will be voting to give their reasons, and it is on that point that I seek your help.
As you will know, many Members of all parties are opposed on various grounds to military action against Iraq, and many others who represent service men and women in their constituencies who may be called to fight in such a war have anxieties on behalf of them and their families. Therefore, I am asking you to accept a manuscript motion worded as follows:
That this House declines to support a war against Iraq using the royal prerogative unless it has been authorised by both the United Nations Security Council and a motion carried in this House.Only in that way can hon. Members discharge their responsibilities to their constituents. Such a motion would not preclude a motion to adjourn, which would follow at the end of the day's business in the usual way.I know of no ruling by previous Speakers that would bind you to rejecting this request, and submit that your responsibility is to the House as a whole and that your authority on procedure is unchallengeable by anyone. For those reasons, I appeal to you to allow my motion to be moved, debated and voted on in parallel to the motion to adjourn.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you rule on the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), would you look at the precedents and precisely those related to Iraq? Will you bear it in mind that when the House was recalled on 6 September 1990 when Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait, the debate was on a motion for the Adjournment moved by the Government of the day? Will you further note that, when a second debate was held on this issue on 11 December 1990, it once again took place on a motion for the Adjournment moved by the Government of the day? Will you also note that, when another debate was held on 15 January 1991, it again took place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House? No manuscript amendment was moved or accepted and those debates on the Adjournment did not prevent the official Opposition from voting alongside the Government, as the official Opposition are not doing today, and did not prevent my hon. Friend from voting against his own party on every occasion?
§ Paul Flynn (Newport, West)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Please sit down.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would make a good Clerk of the House, but there are no vacancies.
I am grateful to the Father of the House for giving me notice of his point of order. He is seeking a debate on his proposed manuscript motion before the House begins a 25 debate on the motion on the Order Paper. Our rules do not allow this to happen. Under Standing Order No. 14, Government business has precedence over other business except in certain defined circumstances. This is not one of those circumstances. When the House is recalled under Standing Order No. 13, the only business to be debated is that of which the Government have given notice. In this case, that is the motion for the Adjournment of the House which is set out on the Order Paper.
If the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) wishes to raise another point of order, I must advise him that he will take time out of the debate in which many Members wish to speak.
§ Paul FlynnI shall be extremely brief. My point of order is that my constituents—and many of them have spoken to me—will not understand why I cannot vote today against following the Bush agenda.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may interest Members to learn that the applicant for Clerk of the House has a faulty memory. Two substantive debates on the Gulf war were held on 21 January 1991 and on 21 February 1991. One took place under a Government motion and the other under a Scottish National party motion. In television and radio interviews, the Leader of the House has indicated sympathy for the idea of a substantive motion, so would it be in order for him to make a statement to tell us when that might be?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe must move on.