HC Deb 19 February 1976 vol 905 cc1497-500
Mr. Cryer

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely, The decision of British Railways to commence cutting railway services on 1st March, coupled with their decision further to increase fares by 17½per cent. on 28th March. This is a recipe for the certain and continued reduction of our railway network.

The matter is urgent because, unless the views and wishes of Parliament are made known to the Government—namely, that there should be continuing financial support for the railway services so that they are maintained at least at their existing level of operations and fares—the process of the erosion of British Railways' services will commence in 10 days.

Experience has shown the nation that, once the process of the withdrawal of public transport services starts, it is difficult to stop. Unless action is taken between now and 1st March, it seems likely that the Government are proposing to stand by while a further deterioration of our public transport system commences. This would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the manifesto on which we were elected.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge you seriously to consider that the House should debate these decisions here and now and demonstrate to the mass of the people outside that we cannot allow the Government to plan for and then tacitly to accept the erosion of our railway network.

The great urgency of the matter is further indicated by the fact that British Railways have announced their decision even while talks are still taking place with the unions concerned, and it would appear that the only possibility of a further deferment of the cuts is through action here in Parliament.

The unions involved, the Labour Party and the traveling public reject the decisions of British Railways. Parliament should have an opportunity to support that rejection.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) 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 decision of British Rail to commence cutting services on 1st March. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I am in no way challenging your decision, and although I am certainly not challenging your decision yesterday which refused me a Private Notice Question on this matter——

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) does not often make a mistake in procedure, but it is never done to refer to the fact that a Private Notice Question has been declined—if it was.

Mr. Heffer

I accept your view totally, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I ask what a Member can do, in the circumstances, to raise a matter of this importance. Both the increase in fares and the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) today about cuts in rail services are matters of the greatest importance in this House. If we are blocked by the procedures of the House, as we have been, perhaps you can advise us how we can raise these matters in order to air them on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker

May I say, first, that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for beginning his remarks by saying that he was not questioning my ruling. As for his request for advice, I think that there are very few in the House who can advise the hon. Gentleman on ways and means of getting matters discussed on the Floor of the House.

Mr. John Mendelson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the subject of alternative advice, right hon. and hon. Members know that the Chair is always very helpful, especially when a Member sees the occupant of the Chair privately. However, the matter of principle involved here, which was considered by the Select Committee and which has no bearing on an individual decision but which bears on all future possible decisions, ought to be considered.

Whether a rule is applied very rigidly or more widely is a matter of interpretation. When the Select Committee considered these matters—and many right hon. and hon. Members had the opportunity to consider them privately with you before you were elected to the Chair—it was in the minds of Members of all political persuasions and of many parliamentary generations that there should be a loosening of the provision and that the opportunities for immediate debate should be increased. May I suggest to you, therefore, that there is now an urgent need not for private consultation with you but for a public consideration by Members of this House about whether we should take early action—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Mendelson rose—

Mr. Speaker

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I thought that he was challenging my ruling.

Mr. Mendelson

No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I understand. May I say that I would be greatly relieved if the Select Committee on Procedure looked at this question. However, all that I can do is to exercise my judgment as best I can within the rules of the House. That I have done.

Mr. Tebbit

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the heart of this question today is that the House is not responsible for the matter in any case——

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let me repeat, because it is for the good of the House that I should do so, that, whenever the occupant of the Chair asks for order, whoever is addressing the House should sit down at once—otherwise we shall become very untidy. I might say also that there is no merit in pursuing the ruling that I have given, and I do not propose to take any further points of order relating to it.