§ Mr. Ellis SmithI ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the serious allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the urgent need for an investigation and the consequent cancellation of the proposed discharges in the Royal Ordnance factories.I know that I am not allowed to debate this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I want to put one or two points for your consideration. In the latest edition of Erskine May there has been a clarification of precedents which I have carefully studied, and if ever there was a definite case of public importance and of urgency, it is this. Therefore, I am asking for your Ruling on this definite matter of urgent and public importance.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member was good enough to give me advance notice this morning that he would raise this matter, and I have considered it carefully. The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the serious allegations made by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the urgent need for an investigation and the cancellation of the proposed discharges in the Royal Ordnance factories.My difficulty in dealing with this matter under Standing Order No. 9 arises from the fact that, in the first place, these events, according to the hon. Member for Leeds, East, happened some time ago. There was a reference to them I remember, in a Question about a week or a fortnight ago.
§ Mr. Denis HealeyOn Monday.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the matter was urgent then, it could have been raised.
My other difficulty, frankly, is this. The hon. Member for Leeds, East made his speech last night, as he was quite entitled to do, on the Third Reading of 1524 the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)Bill, when the House as a whole had turned its attention to defence, and the Minister of Supply who, if anybody, is responsible, had left the Chamber and was not able to reply then. The result is that I have heard only one side of the story. That makes me doubt whether the matter is really definite until we know the facts.
However, I have a suggestion to make. While I could not find the hon. Member's submission to come within the Standing Order, I think that circumstances have arisen which will give me a short time to spare tomorrow. If any hon. Member asks for this matter to be discussed then, perhaps the House will hear both sides of the question and will be able to form a better conclusion.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithI know the history of this House and the way in which we have won our democratic rights. I know it is the duty of Mr. Speaker to defend the private Member, especially one who has the courage to raise an issue like this. Therefore, I want, first, to express my appreciation of your sympathetic approach to the question, Mr. Speaker, and to contrast that with the attitude of some about whom I would like to say something if I were outside the House.
§ Mr. C. PannellAs a Leeds Member, I should like to express my appreciation of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, because it is the members of my trade union who are largely disadvantaged by this action. May I also express the delight of the House that somebody has for once raised a matter concerned with the wrongs and grievances of the natives of these islands? May I say that in spite of the short time there is for the Minister to deal with this matter tomorrow, some of us who are concerned with industry, the Royal Ordnance factories and the question which my hon. Friend has raised, are fully cognisant of the weight which must be attached to this matter and to the very serious answer which must be given from the Government Front Bench.
§ Several Hon. Membersrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerWe will pass from that now.