SEAMEN'S STRIKE (Hansard, 21 June 1966)

§ Mr. Deedes
I rise to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday that pressures are being brought to bear on the Executive Council of the National Union of Seamen by certain individuals. Being aware of the very close restraints which the Standing Order opposes upon you, Mr. Speaker, and upon the House, may I briefly submit these considerations? This is emphatically a matter of urgent public importance. Its urgency, after 48 days of the strike and the fresh light which what the Prime Minister said yesterday has thrown upon it, is, I think, beyond question.
So, I think the House will accept, is its public importance. There could hardly be a matter of greater public gravity.
There remains only the qualifying word "definite". On this, you will recall, Sir, that the Prime Minister was quite specific. He told us that what he was saying was not based on rumour or on secondhand report; he was clear as to what his statement should mean. It was emphatically not a matter involving hypothetical circumstances.
Finally, I should add that I am aware that this is a matter which might have been raised 24 hours ago immediately after the Prime Minister had spoken and on this ground you, Mr. Speaker, may 288 see fit to rule it out of time. I submit that the circumstances are rather unusual.
The Prime Minister's words were most properly guarded and carefully chosen. They were elaborated only a little towards the end of a series of questions and answer. Their full impact was appreciated only after the event and in the light of what we have all read this morning. The charges and the counter-charges to which they have given rise constitute part of the matter and underline the need for further clarification, under the heading of "urgency".
On these grounds, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is a matter falling within the ambit of Standing Order No. 9.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right on. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday that pressures are being brought to bear on the Executive Council of the National Union of Seamen by certain individuals. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intimating to me this morning, with his characteristic courtesy, that he would be seeking to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9. May I also say to the House that I examine most sympathetically all applications for leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. But, as the House now knows, almost painfully, I am bound by the judgments and precedents set by my predecessors.
I am afraid that I cannot find this application within Standing Order No. 9. In the first place, even if the subject itself was such as the rules would allow it to be raised, it should have been raised at the earliest opportunity, which was yesterday. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as to why it was not raised yesterday, but that cannot affect my Ruling. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Ruling given by my predecessor on 11th May, 1949, Vol. 460 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 116 and the reference made to that Ruling on page 365 of Erskine May. Such a Ruling is quite categorical.
In the second place, the strike has been going on for some time and the fact 289 that new information about it has been given to the House does not in itself make it a matter of urgency in the sense required by Standing Order No. 9. Again, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to another Ruling given by one of my predecessors on this very aspect of the matter. It is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 71st July, 1951, Vol. 490, col. 641, and also referred to in the list of precedents on page 365 of Erskine May.
I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that there will shortly be an opportunity to debate the subject of the seamen's strike when the new Emergency Regulations come before the House, as I understand that they are to do so next week for the House's approval. I am sorry that I must decline to agree to the right hon. Gentleman's request.

§ Mr. Paget
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without seeking to argue with you—one could not argue that this application could possibly be in order under any construction of the rule—may I ask whether you have observed on the Order Paper a Motion, tabled by myself—
[That Mr. Speaker shall be at liberty to disregard rulings of his predecessors which in his opinion unduly restrict the 290 original intention of Standing Order No. 9 as expressed by Mr. Speaker Peel.]— which has now been signed by nearly half the hon. Members of the House and which requests you to be guided by Mr. Speaker Peel's original statement rather than by the later precedents?
As that Motion has been signed by more than half the House, will you take that as a release from those subsequent Rulings, Sir?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for raising that point so ingenuously. But this is the kind of question, about Motions on the Order Paper, that he must put on Thursdays to the Leader ot the House, not to Mr. Speaker.
I can inform the House that I do read the Order Paper and have seen the Motion to which the hon. and learned Member referred. I cannot however, comment on it, except to suggest that Mr. Speaker Peel's Ruling was perhaps not quite so broad and generous as the reformers of Standing Order No. 9 would have us believe. This, however, is a matter not for Mr. Speaker, but for the House itself. It must either consider or not consider the Motion and must decide the issue. I am the servant of the House. If I get instructions from it, I follow them.