TILBURY DOCKS (CONTAINER BERTHS) (Hansard, 27 November 1969)

§ Mr. Ian Lloyd
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the consequences of the decision by the Tilbury dockers to maintain their ban on the handling of containers. You, Mr. Speaker, require evidence that this matter is specific, important and urgent—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Motions under Standing Order No. 9 are important.

§ Mr. Lloyd
—and, moreover, that it falls within the scope of Ministerial action.
This is a specific decision by a specific group of dockers not to use specified container handling techniques. The location is specific: it is in Tilbury. Moreover, this decision will create—and perhaps this is more important—the first specific instance within my knowledge of a new and massively damaging type of artificial industrial obsolescence.
The matter is important because the maritime transport industries of this country have recently invested well in excess of £100 million to adapt themselves to what is possibly the most serious challenge which they have faced in a century. They have done this to re-establish a British lead in a sphere in which Britain still has a lead. They have done it to continue the contribution which these industries make to our balance of payments in time of peace and to our survival in war.
It is important not merely because a substantial proportion of this national investment—and it is a national investment—has been sterilised for at least two years by this action, the real question is whether this country, perilously dependent on the proper deployment of its national resources, can tolerate a precedent of this kind succeeding. If it succeeds, the whole range of technical innovation, not merely in the docks, will be placed at the mercy of new, self-appointed apostles of obstruction.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must not discuss the 652 merits of what he will discuss if his application is successful.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I was merely emphasising that, if these decisions are allowed to succeed, a specific group of individuals, olympian in their disregard of the national interest, in their scorn of industrial negotiations, can destroy national institutions.

§ Mr. John Lee
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not usual to have a point of order during a Standing Order No. 9 application.

§ Mr. Lee
With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have already told the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) that he should not argue the merits of this case. Surely he is indulging in polemics which have nothing to do with his case.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker is endeavouring to see that when an hon. Member makes a submission under Standing Order No. 9 he makes it properly.

§ Mr. Lloyd
To continue the specific points—

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must hear the specific point before I know whether or not it is in order.

§ Mr. Lloyd
It is a specific fact that this type of decision and obstruction is taken by this type of individual—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking leave that we may break into the debate of the House set out m the Order Paper. If he succeeds in obtaining leave, he may make the point he has made and many others. For the moment, he has to convince the House and the Chair that his application is a justifiable one.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I shall move immediately to the question of importance. This situation has presented a direct and formidable challenge to the Government— [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member is reading."]—whose responsibility it is to ensure—

§ Mr. Speaker
Hon. Members who are jealous of their own rights under Standing Order No. 9 and attack free speech must accord it to others.

§ Mr. Delargy
On a point of order. I respect the rights of hon. Members as well as anyone else, but the hon. Member has read every single word.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not unknown in this House, although it is always discouraged, for hon. Members to read every word of what they say.

§ Mr. John Mendelson
Further to that point of order. Under Standing Order No. 9, as you rightly say, Mr. Speaker, we must all observe each other's rights, but if an hon. Member wishes to blacken the reputation of a group of men and makes use of Standing Order No. 9 procedure purely for that purpose, having written his imputations against a group of workmen before he submits his Standing Order application, he is abusing the Orders of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member has expressed his opinion.

§ Mr. Lloyd
Hon. Members may or may not read some of their speeches, but I defy them to read a speech which is in note form.
It is the duty of Governments to preserve the legitimate and constitutional processes of this country. These have been frustrated by dark and devious threats

Hon. Members
Order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker is grateful to hon. Gentlemen for helping him. The hon. Gentleman must observe the method of applying under Standing Order No. 9. He has heard many applications submitted to the House. He cannot make the speech that he will make if he obtains his application under Standing Order No. 9.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I will now turn to the urgency of this matter. It is urgent because it is costing the country a minimum of £14,000 a day. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would willingly like to have £14,000 to spend either on their schools or on teachers' salaries.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt his own submission.

§ Mr. Lloyd
It is urgent because immediate action, and nothing but immediate action, may prevent the loss of the 654 total United Kingdom—Australian trade to Antwerp. I submit that this is a question of considerable importance. Nothing in my submission is more urgent than a direct and contemptuous challenge to the whole apparatus and procedure whereby progress and industrial agreement are achieved in this country.

§ Mr. Faulds
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Chair is grateful, but the Chair can manage. The hon. Gentleman must not digress into the merits. We are not debating Tilbury. The hon. Gentleman is asking Mr. Speaker to allow him to suspend the business of the day so that he might debate it.

§ Mr. Faulds
On a point of order. If the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Lang-stone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) would be so good as to hand me his script I will promise to prompt him rather better than he is reading it.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a foolish attempt at a point of order.

§ Mr. Lloyd
On the final question of responsibility, it is my submission that this is quite definitely within the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who is not here. It is within his responsibility because this matter affects the whole country, every family in the country. It is within his responsibility because, for the last two years, the authority of every Department of the State has been diminished by these actions.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is clean out of order now.

§ Mr. Lloyd
Without wishing in any way discourteously to anticipate your decision, Mr. Speaker, if the matter which I have raised this afternoon is not a matter specific, urgent and important, then the English language has lost some of its meaning, and the appropriate comment on Parliament is that of a requiem mass.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Whatever the noise is doing, it is not defending the English language.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) was courteous enough to inform me that he might seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House today.
655 The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the consequences of the Tilbury dockers' decision to maintain their ban on the handling of containers". As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations of the hon. Member and to all that happened previously on this matter this afternoon, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not prepared to take further points of order on an issue which I have already ruled several times.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
We are in some difficulty, Mr. Speaker. We accept your guidance on all matters, but this afternoon we have witnessed an unsual situation. First, in the opinion of many hon. Members on this side of the House, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), who invoked Standing-Order No. 9, did so in a manner which we believe was an abuse of procedure. Secondly, could you advise me under what paragraphs of the Standing Orders of the procedure of the House you yourself, Sir, derive the power to refuse to listen to any other submissions on that particular matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
On the second matter, the power of the Speaker to refuse points of order on the same issue after he has ruled for a certain time is a power of long standing.
On the first point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman, I was aware that 656 the hon. Member for Langstone was irregularly moving his application for Standing Order No. 9 and, with the help of some hon. Members in the House, I called his attention to the fact from time to time.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have told the hon. Gentleman that I cannot take a point of order on the issue which we have discussed already.

§ Mr. MacLennan
I respect your Ruling entirely, Mr. Speaker, but would ask you how hon. Members can be protected in a situation which has arisen when there appears to be a direct conflict of evidence about facts on which Mr. Speaker makes—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going back. He must take the matter up in some other way. There is no conflict of facts.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman himself is one of those who advised me on the facts of the case this morning. I know all about them. This is a matter for Parliament to resolve. It is not however to be solved by repeating points of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will take no further points of order on that issue. Hon. Gentlemen must resume their seats.

§ Mr. Roebuck
Mr. Speaker, you have referred to some facts which have been put before you. Is it possible for the rest of the House to have information about those facts, since many hon. Members know nothing about them?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is going back to the issue. The facts were placed before the House during the submissions.