On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 24 July last, in response to a point of order from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) complaining about a question by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), you gave a ruling to which, in your own words, you gave particular stress. You said: I first want to give a ruling on a very important question. The wider constituencies belonging to the Assembly of Europe have no bearing at all upon us here. I treat every hon. Member as a Member for the Constituency for which he or she was elected to this House."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 349–50.] That was a ruling which, with respect to you, Mr. Speaker, was still somewhat open to interpretation. Indeed, the following day the parliamentary correspondent of The Guardian made his interpretation—an interpretation with which I felt I agreed, but hon. Members may differ—and said: The Speaker of the Commons yesterday ruled that a Euro MP could not raise constituency problems of another Westminster MP simply because they come within his or her Euro boundaries. That interpretation, so far as I know, has neither been confirmed nor denied by anybody. The Guardian correspondent on that occasion interpreted your words, Mr. Speaker— I treat every hon. Member here as a Member for the constituency for which he or she was elected to this House"— as meaning that the rights of Euro MP's extended only to constituencies for which they were elected to this House. If that interpretation is correct, it must have clear implications also in regard to what is to be regarded as proper behaviour for a Member elected only to this House vis-a-vis another Member's constituency, not least because the hon. Member for Lancaster is a Member of this House. Certainly this view is widely held.

I recall to the House that the Home Secretary, during an exchange on this matter on 15 November 1979, said: In my 25 years in the House, I always understood that it was a condition and a principle amongst hon. Members that we did not interfere with cases in each other's constituencies."—[Official Report, 15 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 1503–4.] That is certainly a principle to which I have sought, in the 15 years that I have been here, to have meticulous regard. At the same time, all the advice that I have been able to obtain suggests that this convention is not inviolate, but, like most sensible conventions, has to be subject to reasonable exceptions. But the fact that there are exceptions does not mean that the convention can be ignored altogether.

Clearly a large number of hon. Members have within their constituencies big industrial concerns, airports, railway stations or whatever, which have general interest. [Interruption.]

Order.

The example that I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, has certain, but not all, of these aspects. It is here that I seek your guidance. I am sure that it is within your recollection that it was announced a week ago today in the late afternoon that the—

Order. It must be very difficult for the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) chattering all the time whilst he is trying to speak—and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). [Interruption.] I know that it was two hon. Members, but it is very unfair and ill mannered.

Mr. Johnston rose—

I get the blame for everything.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, it will be within your recollection that it was announced a week ago today, in the late afternoon, that the pulp mill at Fort William in my Constituency was to close, affecting 450 people directly and others outside. You will remember that, on the Wednesday, I sought by private notice to raise a question on this.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know the rules of order. He must not refer to any private notice question that has come my way and not been accepted. The whole House understands that that is important.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman is being ill mannered again.

In any event, the following day, Thursday, I went to my Constituency and visited Fort William. In consequence, I put down two written questions on the issue to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

On the next day, Friday, I learnt that a motion was on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and the names of 22 other hon. Members expressing concern about the issue. I mention that not to complain about it—far from it, because it seemed a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do—but to make the point about the difficulty facing hon. Members in deciding where the line is drawn.

However, I also learnt that there were seven written questions down on the subject by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). With six of these I would not in any way quarrel, but I should have thought that the convention of the House would suggest that the civilised and sensible thing to do was for the hon. Gentleman to give me some notice of it.

However—and this is the point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker—if you take the first question that he raised —[Interruption.]

Everybody is talking now.

I am sure that you would agree with me that matters of principle are often tedious—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman would come to his point of order, it would help us all.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Garscadden asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit Fort William to discuss with the local authorities, the Fort William action group and other interested bodies the closure of the pulp mill and its impact on the area. Is not that clearly a matter which affects a Constituency Member principally and primarily? What is the convention? Is there a convention? How is it applied, if it is to be applied? Surely it is not irrelevant to ask that the hon. Member for Garscadden, who is also the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish affairs, ought to have a particular care for, to use the words of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) who raised the matter earlier, the rights and privileges of constituency Members and not simply to raise the constituency matters as and when he feels appropriate.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may offer a very brief explanation and, perhaps, an apology for any aggravations which may have arisen from my actions.

I think that it would be common ground in all parts of the House that in Scotland the closure of the pulp mill at Corpach is a matter of national concern, which engages the attention of people involved in politics throughout Scotland. It was on that basis that I took an interest in the matter. I imagine that it would be common concern on all Benches that everything possible should be done to save all the jobs in this very exposed industrial outpost in the Highlands.

I was one of a group of Members who put down an early-day motion in connection with that, and in conjunction with that motion I put down seven written questions. I spoke earlier today with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who was good enough to say that he took no exception to six of them but that he took exception to the seventh, to which he has very properly referred in his remarks.

In retrospect, I regret that that question was included. It was one of a series. I hope that the House will accept that enthusiasm ran away with me. Certainly there was no intention of encrouching upon the proper preserve of the hon. Member or of embarrassing him in any way. I regret it, but I hope that the House will accept that point. I have known the hon. Member for more years than I care to think of, long before either of us became Members of this House and I have a healthy respect for him. The question has not yet been answered, and I have arranged for its withdrawal. If I have unintentionally caused offence to the hon. Member or to the House in terms of its conventions, I certainly apologise.

I am very much obliged, and the House is obliged, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Before we leave this matter, I merely say that, from my own long years of service on those green Benches, I am aware that hon. Members are more sensitive about their own constituencies than about anything else. The hon. Member for Garscadden has cleared up the matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, the fact that the convention is very often broken by one of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I make no complaint. Indeed, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) very often transgresses into other constituencies when putting down questions, and not once have objections from my colleagues been registered. I believe that there are circumstances in which it is perfectly legitimate to ask such questions, but I object to the Liberal Party claiming certain privileges and to those privileges not extending right across the Floor of the House.

Order. It is not a Standing Order but a convention and a matter of good taste that we try not to interfere in one another's Constituency affairs.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I was referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), and further to his point of order, perhaps I might say that I would support his view that there are many points—I seek your advice on this matter—which are, as the hon. Member said, of general interest to all hon. Members, and one of these is the European regional fund. It is in the interests of all hon. Members and the country in general that we get the best possible value from this fund. I very much hope that nothing in any ruling that you have ever given prevents hon. Members from seeking to get the maximum benefit for this country from that fund.

The hon. Lady should remember that those who are Members of the European Parliament have their opportunity there to ask what questions they like. So far as I am concerned in this House, I believe that we must recognise the centuries-old tradition that an hon. Member speaks here for the Constituency and for the country generally, but, in particular, I recognise him as the Member for such-and-such a constituency, and the European Parliament is recognised by hon. Members as a different body.