§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn a point of Order. I understand that it is possible for this Bill to be discussed after Eleven o'clock, but I want to know under what Standing Order the Government allow this Bill to be discussed after Eleven o'clock without notice of a Motion suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule having been previously given.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Private Business is not taken under the Standing Order but under a special Order passed on Monday of last week. The House then passed a Special Order providing that any Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means should be taken as soon as the business under the time table has been disposed of, notwithstanding that it is after Eleven o'clock.
§ Mr. TAYLORI believe it has been customary in the past, when railway Bills and other Bills of a similar character were before the House, for Members to take the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to grievances connected with condition of employment. 1974 I would like at once to say that while I intend to draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be the legitimate and serious grievance of certain employés, I have no desire whatever to interfere with the progress of this Bill making provision as it does for London's important public services. I desire to draw the attention of the House to these grievances because the particular class of men who are affected are not in a position to remedy their grievance by the process of a strike, owing to the special character of their employment and because they have exhausted every reasonable facility that is open to them to secure redress. I have here a petition which was presented in February of this year to the London County Council signed by 113 ex-service men, 23 of whom were ex-commissioned officers. The signatures include every rank in the Army from that of major downwards, and these men have, I think, a special claim to consideration. The men concerned are temporary departmental clerical assistants. These men are performing work that is really of a permanent character, i.e., it is not casual work which is of a non-recurring or seasonal nature. It is ordinary administrative routine work which in the normal course——
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not see how their grievances can be discussed on this Bill. The only reason why the Bill comes before the House is that there is certain control over the expenditure of the London County Council. The hon. Member prefaced his remarks by referring to the procedure on railway Bills. I think it is quite a different case, where a statutory company comes to the House, because by an ancient procedure of the 1975 House grievances may then be discussed if they are special to that company, but it would be rather a serious matter if we were to raise on the floor of the House the ordinary administrative work of a great body like the London County Council.
§ Mr. TAYLORI shall at once bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if you decide that my observations are out of order. The later matter of my speech would have referred to the question of salaries, and I do not know how far that might make my submissions in order, or out of order. I will at once be guided by you, and if you think that what I propose to do is out of order, I shall not proceed with it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have here the Standing Order on the subject, Standing Order 194A, which says:
Every annual Money Bill of the London County Council promoted in accordance with the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912, or any Act amending the same, shall contain only powers or provisions relating to the borrowing, lending, and expenditure of money, and shall he subject to the following requirements.Then follow the requirements. There was one occasion when an attempt was made to raise a Debate on the action of the London County Council in regard to education; but that was not allowed.
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn a point of Order. If my memory serve me aright, I listened in this House to a discussion, I think on a similar Bill, which ranged from tramway undertakings to the administration of offices, and I think the widest possible latitude was given on that occasion to the discussion, provided that it had relationship to the London County Council. Last year's Debate had the widest possible range into the administrative details of tramways and the employment of men, and I should like to know why a similar discussion cannot be raised on this occasion.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member's recollection is not correct. We have had discussions regarding bridges and with regard, no doubt, to tramway extensions, which are capital matters that require to be inserted in this Bill, but not on the administrative affairs of the local body.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI do not wish to challenge your statement, but, undoubtedly, if my memory serves me aright, the whole system of tramways was discussed, including the method of running, and other matters. Everything relating to the tramways was raised in minute detail, and the tramway undertaking was the subject of the closest scrutiny. Unless we are now discussing a different type of Bill, I cannot see why we cannot raise these matters now. On that particular Bill of the London County Council the discussion ranged over the smallest details of the tramway undertaking, and there was criticism at that time of the tramway competition with the omnibuses. These matters were purely administrative, and they were all subjected to criticism.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. Member must be thinking of another Bill, the London County Council (General Powers) Bill.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWhere does the difference come in? If it is wrong to criticise the London County Council on this Bill in regard to administrative details, it seems to me that the General Powers Bill is open to the same objection. The County Council are a generally elected body to carry out administrative details, and if objection is to be raised on the point of Order that we cannot criticise administrative details on this Bill, it seems to me that we were subject to the same criticism on the other Bill. Why is a differentiation made on the two Bills?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIn the General Powers Bill they were asking for powers to extend the tramway system. I think it is that to which the hon. Member is referring.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI do not want to challenge your ruling unduly, but it is an important point to some of us. The point is that there was no question whether there was any mention of trams or not; a discussion was allowed on every occasion, year after year, with no limit to the discussion on the administrative details.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not my recollection.
§ Mr. TAYLORThis Clause deals with the position of some 200 employés of the London County Council, who under the existing rule are dismissed automatically at the end of two years. Do I understand you to rule that it is out of order to discuss it, and that I am not permitted to proceed with my speech?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must adhere to my ruling. It is most important, for local government reasons, that we should not review the details of local administration.