HC Deb 09 December 1970 vol 808 cc418-28
Mr. Wellbeloved

On a point of order. I wish to make an application for a Standing Order No. 9 emergency debate.

I should like to apologise, Mr. Speaker, for my failure to give you adequate notice. This was because we were hoping that a Minister would make a statement this afternoon in view of the very grave situation in the electricity supply industry. In view of the failure to do so, I decided at the last possible moment to make this application, and by then you had already taken the Chair.

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 growing gravity of the situation facing the nation as a direct result of the Government's policy of political intervention in the industrial dispute in the electricity supply industry and their refusal to use the conciliation machinery. I submit that this is a matter of extreme urgency. The inconvenience facing the House this afternoon is as nothing compared with the inconvenience facing the nation as a result of the deliberate political intervention by the Government.

The matter is specific because it relates to the Government's failure to take an opportunity this afternoon to make a statement to the House, and this should be a matter for consideration.

It is a matter of public importance because it is incumbent upon the House, in the absence of any lead from the Government, to urge the setting up of a court of inquiry so that the dispute can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is as well if I remind the House of the courtesies of the House. Standing Order No. 9(3) says: A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Speaker by twelve of the clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour. If the urgency is not so known he shall give notice as soon thereafter as is practicable. But I have noted, and the House will note, the apology of the hon. Gentleman and the reason for his not being able to give me earlier notice.

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 growing gravity of the situation facing the nation as a direct result of the Government's policy of political intervention in the industrial dispute in the electricity supply industry and their refusal to use the conciliation machinery. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is usual to accept the decision of Mr. Speaker on Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Foot

Further to that point of order.

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Foot

My hon. Friend raised a point of order and I was seeking to raise a further point of order in connection with the matter he raised and the Ruling you have just given, Mr. Speaker. I fully acknowledge that it is not open to any hon. Member to question the Ruling that you have given. That is laid down in the rules of order.

What I am asking, further to that point of order, is whether it is open to you to tell the House that nothing you have said today will exclude the possibility of a further application for a Standing Order No. 9 debate tomorrow, because more and more people in the House and throughout the country believe that it is essential that we should discuss the matter in the House in order to bring the dispute to an end as swiftly as possible, to remove the growing inconvenience and the growing anxieties throughout the country.

Therefore, my point of order is this. Is it open to a Member to submit the matter to your Ruling again under Standing Order No. 9 tomorrow, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I never rule about the future. I remind the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that this is the second application for the same Standing Order No. 9 debate this week, which really answers his question.

Mr. Peart

On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible to have a statement either from you, because of your responsibility, or from the Leader of the House about the arrangements for hon. Members to continue with business in view of the difficulties?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I shall of course convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment what has been said, and I shall see whether a statement should be made to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Callaghan

Why not today?

Hon. Members

Now.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Hon. Members do themselves no good and Parliament no good by howling.

Mr. Whitelaw

I have learned the value of patience over some time, though it is difficult. When I am trying to help the House I do not see any reason why hon. Members should be unreasonable with me. I was trying to say what I would do my best to do in the interests of the House as a whole. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), for one, would be reasonable if he thought that I was at least doing my best for the House as a whole. I regret that he and other hon. Members should have considered seeking to interrupt me on this point.

As for the point about the proceedings of the House and the lighting of the Chamber, we shall do everything we can to have sufficient light to enable the debate to continue. I am sure that it is right that it should.

Mr. Callaghan

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for conceding that I am usually reasonable. But I must say to him that this is not yet the Reichstag and that he must expect to be interrupted if he makes a statement—[Interruption.]

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

rose—

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The first rule of order which the hon. Member for Can-nock (Mr. Cormack) must observe is that when Mr. Speaker is on his feet any other hon. Member sits down, whether he has one lantern or two. I am being addressed on a point of order already.

Mr. Callaghan

I should like to continue, if I may, to put this point to the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] I am dealing specifically with the point made by the Leader of the House and addressed specifically to me through Mr. Speaker. He was addressing me through Mr. Speaker. I should like to make this point of order to you, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the House shows a degree of complacency about this matter that strains the patience and tolerance of hon. Members, he must expect to be interrupted, because what is at issue here is not just the convenience of the House but the inconvenience and hardship to millions of households throughout the country.

The point of order I should like to address you upon, Mr. Speaker, is this: would it be in order, if the Leader of the House so chose and thought the matter were sufficiently urgent and of sufficient public importance, for him to communicate to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he should come to this House later this afternoon and make a statement, interrupting business, if necessary, in order to explain to the House what the Government propose to do about removing the intolerable hardship that is hanging over the people of the country?

Mr. Whitelaw

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The last thing I wish to do is to excite any passions in this House. I got up for the purpose of seeking to make what I thought was a reasonable submission to the House. I still think it reasonable. If I upset the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South- East (Mr. Callaghan) I quite understand. Equally, perhaps, it is reasonable for me to say that he rather upset me. But I am prepared to forget that, as I am sure he is.

I am being perfectly reasonable. I will communicate with my right hon. Friends that there is a desire for a statement tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Today."] I have noted what the House says and I will communicate with my right hon. Friends, but I cannot guarantee that the statement will be made today. It will depend on circumstances. If a statement should be made tomorrow rather than today, it shall be made tomorrow. I think that is a reasonable proposition. [Interruption.] It is perfectly proper for me to say—and I should like the House to understand—that it may be more appropriate, in the circumstances, for a statement to be made tomorrow rather than today. I am entitled to say that. I will look into the matter with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Callaghan

I think the House will acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has moved a little way. He has said that he will communicate with his right hon. Friend and ask him to consider, whilst it is his own view that it should be made tomorrow, whether a statement can be made today. In these circumstances, I address you, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order and ask whether it would be convenient, if the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State concluded that the statement should be made today, for business to be interrupted.

In pursuing this point of order, I must say that it has come as an extreme surprise to this side of the House that a single day should go by without the Government coming to the House at 3.30—[Interruption.]—and volunteering a statement without being pressed. [Interruption.] Surely the benches opposite realise the inconvenience and the hardship that our people are being subjected to. In these circumstances, the point I am making to you, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be reasonable for us to ask the Government to volunteer a statement, without your being embarrassed by Standing Order No. 9 requests, in order that the Government can indicate to us whether they do not really think that the time has come for them to step in and set up a court of inquiry and tell the men that they should get back to work so that the court of inquiry can get on with the job.

Mr. Whitelaw

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. All I will say at this stage is simply that I have said that I will communicate with my right hon. Friends concerned. I have equally said what any Government would be entitled to say—that I must reserve the position, depending upon the circumstances, as I do not myself know them exactly at the present time. That is reasonable for any Government to say. That is all I am saying. I am at least entitled to expect, in view of the various attacks being made and without entering into the merits or demerits of the dispute, that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to appreciate that he and his colleagues had a perfectly proper procedure open to them—that of patting down a Private Notice Question, which they did not do.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that there is a debate ahead of us on foreign affairs which the House wanted.

Mr. Milne

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Could I have your guidance on the question of the time-table for Standing Order No. 9? In the absence of a statement from the Secretary of State on the board at two o'clock this afternoon, it was not possible for those of us who were looking at the possibility of asking for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 to be able to get the request for that debate in before 12 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker

I thought that I had made the position clear when I dealt with the original application. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) explained why he could not make his application until late.

Mr. Atkinson

Further to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that, on the Order Paper, today was described as a "Supply Day". If that is the case, then the opportunity lies with this side of the House to decide to debate electricity supply rather than foreign affairs. On the other hand, if this is not a Supply Day and the debate is to take place on the Motion for the Adjournment, is it not within the right of every hon. Member to discuss whatever topic he wishes?

Mr. Speaker

It was to have been a Supply Day but I understand that the usual channels agreed to transfer the business from that of Supply to a debate on the Adjournment on the topic of foreign affairs. Any hon. Member who is called in a debate on the Adjournment can raise what subject he likes.

Hon. Members

Send for Davies.

Mr. Speaker

Noise does not help in any way whatever.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). Is it not the case that, strictly speaking, even without notification of the Chair, although that may be deplored by Mr. Speaker, provided that notice is given to the appropriate Minister, an hon. Member may raise any subject he likes on the Adjournment? If I now say to the Minister that I shall raise the subjects of the fuel crisis and electricity supply, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding any agreement which may or may not have been made between the two Front Benches, will I not be able to discuss it?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has reinforced rather voluminously the Ruling which I made just now.

Mr. Pardoe

On a point of order. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but this is not just a question of the inconvenience of the House, or hardship for the country. I should like your advice, Mr. Speaker, about how an hon. Member can raise a matter which is literally of life and death.

Within the last two hours I have had a telephone conversation with a lady in the West Country whose son-in-law is on a kidney machine. He is a young man with two children and he has to go on the kidney machine for 10 hours every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. However, because of the power cuts and the lower voltage, the kidney machine will not sterilise itself. He has to go on tonight, but the machine will not work, and if he does not go on tomorrow, there will be literally fear for his life. He has been to Guy's Hospital today, but the officials there could do nothing for him, because there are too many people in this situation.

How can an hon. Member raise what is literally a matter of life and death, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

The House has been deeply moved by what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is one of the human illustrations of the seriousness of power cuts. We have already dealt with the method of raising the matter.

Mr. Orme

I recognise that the Leader of the House has said that he will consider the possibility of a statement being made later today or tomorrow, but I regard this as a matter of urgency and I think that we ought to have a statement today from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about this matter. The Leader of the House ought to communicate that view to his right hon. Friend. The matter is of such urgency that the House ought to discus it and we should be told what, if anything, the Government are doing to mitigate the situation.

Mr. Speaker

The point which the hon. Member has made was put equally succinctly and powerfully by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

Mr. Thorpe

Arising from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that as we are about to have a debate on the Adjournment, any subject may be raised, may I ask what protection the House will have, in the event that the subject of the electricity industry is one of the matters raised during the course of the debate, for ensuring that the appropriate Minister will be present?

Mr. Speaker

If that should happen, I am sure that the appropriate Minister will be present.

Mr. Molloy

On a point of order. May I point out that the Leader of the House is responsible primarily to the House rather than the Government? As the Minister involved has been making provocative, biased and unhelpful statements—[Interruption.]—if that were not the truth, hon. Members opposite would not be yelping—on wireless and television, ought he not at least to come to the House of Commons and have the courage to face the Opposition and explain his behaviour, which is causing so much damage in this industrial dispute?

Mr. Speaker

That is the same point put a little more emotionally.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that for the last 90 minutes the daylight has been shining only on the just in the House while the guilty men opposite have been lurking in the shadows? Would it not be convenient for the House and helpful to the country if we now changed sides so that the country could be run properly?

Mr. Speaker

A similar thought about one side of the House being in darkness occurred to me earlier. I am the only man who dare not express it.

Mr. Callaghan

I think that it would be the desire of most hon. Members to avoid a ragged debate on foreign affairs. However, it will be possible for various matters of great importance to be raised. May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman now reconsiders the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am putting a point for the good order of our business today. [Interruption.] I am addressing myself to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Government. In order that we may have a sensible and coherent debate on foreign affairs, may I suggest that at some stage, suitable and convenient to the Government and the House, we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? I believe that those hon. Members who are concerned, as we all are, about the position in the electricity supply industry would then be able to restrain the comments which might otherwise be interposed in a foreign affairs debate. That would enable us to proceed in an orderly manner. I make the suggestion in the interests of good business.

Mr. Whitelaw

Further to that point of order. It is a fact that the House asked for this debate on foreign affairs. It is a fact that the House wants this debate on foreign affairs. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is in the interests of the House as a whole that there should now be a debate on foreign affairs as requested. If, in order to help, a statement would be appropriate at, say, the end of the debate at ten o'clock, I will look into that possibility. It would be wrong for me to guarantee it, but I will look into the possibility and see whether it would be appropriate. It seems to be a reasonable way to proceed.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We ought to be moving on.

Mr. Thorpe

Further to that point of order. The Leader of the House is not seized of the feelings of the House in all quarters—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in all quarters. Although some may take different views from others, no one has presumed to speak on behalf of the whole House, particularly not on behalf of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis).

As in these matters the House wishes to give the Leader of the House as much flexibility as possible, bearing in mind the useful precedent of the announcement made about the two-tier value of gold in the last Parliament, when ample opportunity was afforded for supplementary questions to the Minister concerned, which the House found helpful, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of continuing the debate on foreign affairs until, say, seven or eight o'clock and thereafter having a statement by the appropriate Minister with adequate opportunity for supplementary questions? I do not press the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer on that at this stage, but I think that the House would be grateful to him if he were prepared at least to give sympathetic consideration to that formula.

Mr. Whitelaw

Further to that point of order. I will give sympathetic consideration to any propositions which may be put and which the House wishes to have put, because that is my job. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to seek to prevent a ragged debate on foreign affairs. I think that mine was the best proposal in all the circumstances for preventing a ragged debate on foreign affairs. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to speak in that debate and I should have thought that my suggestion was the best means of preventing a ragged debate on foreign affairs—I do not know of any other. However, I will consider all other possibilities.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

On a point of order. I am reluctant to raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker, but on this side of the House hon. Members have sat for the last half an hour without raising points of order. In case that is misunderstood, in case it is thought that our not raising points of order means that we do not have points of view, I now seek to express a point of view.

Mr. Speaker

No points of view, only points of order.

Mr. Lewis

This is a point of order.

There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who, in spite of what has been said, do not think that there should be a statement on the electricity supply crisis this day. We had a statement yesterday and we think that after the Minister has contemplated the matter for 24 hours, it will be enough to have a statement tomorrow. In case my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House assumes from the questions in the last half an hour that a majority of hon. Members favour having a statement today, I wish to say that I at least do not think that a statement is necessary at this time.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Leader of the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's contribution.

Mr. Bob Brown

Further to that point of order. It is evident that the House wants to get on with the foreign affairs debate and it is equally evident that the House wants to do so uninterrupted. Would not the simple way out of this be for the Prime Minister to give an assurance to the House that he will get on the telephone to both sides in the electricity industry and say that he is removing his ridiculous 10 per cent. veto to let them start negotiations and settle the dispute?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. Mr. Dalyell.