AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (Hansard, 1 July 1976)

§ Mr. Tom King
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 prima facie evidence that secret arrangements about the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill have been made between the Leader 679 of the House and the Government and certain hon. Members of this House without the knowledge or consent of this House, and that this may have led to a vote being taken in a recent debate under false pretences.
I understand that my duty under Standing Order No. 9 is to satisfy you, Mr. Speaker, under the criteria of the Standing Order. This is a very specific matter because it was dealt with quite specifically by the Prime Minister today in Answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that the only undertakings given and agreements made were those mentioned in the rather turgid opening of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on Tuesday night. I have a copy of that speech—an extract from the Official Report. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the whole of the relevant passage is contained in columns 323 to 326 of the Official Report of 29th June.
I also have in my hand the report of the Press release from the Plaid Cymru Paty stating the agreement that it has reached. It has said that this was the package agreed with the Government. I accept in good faith this statement that these undertakings were given; and we were aware that considerable negotiations were taking place during the course of that debate to see whether an agreed statement could be made. We are aware that things were in writing so that there was no question of any misunderstanding in that form. This is very specific because there are specific items here which were specifically excluded from the statement made by the Leader of the House.

§ Mrs. Winifred Ewing
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. King
A specific point was that the Government would consider holding a referendum of employees of the company to ascertain their attitude towards nationalisation—if I may say so, quite an excellent idea, which we have long supported. But there was no mention whatsoever of this in the statement of the Leader of the House.
Further, and this is perhaps the most serious matter, the statement added that 680 a significant commitment had been given by the Government which cannot be disclosed at present. How can that possibly be reconciled with the statement of the Prime Minister that the total agreement was contained in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House?
The importance of this matter will certainly not be lost on you, Mr. Speaker, for you are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this crucial issue, and it will be within your observation that the attitude of the nationalist parties was crucial to the result of the vote on 29th June. As we shall shortly be proceeding to further stages of this Bill it is obviously a matter of great urgency that this should be propertly considered.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite intolerable if secret deals are to be done in this House and if the word of the Prime Minister is to be questioned here as a result of his Answer at Question Time today. We believe—and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, fully within the correct criteria of Standing Order No. 9—that this matter should have urgent consideration and that it should be made clear to the House whether in fact a deal has been done or whether the nationalist parties have been double-crossed by the Government, or what is the true situation.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made an application under Standing Order No. 9 and I must rule on it. The hon. Member 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 prima facie evidence that secret arrangements about the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill have been made between the Leader of the House and certain hon. Members without the knowledge and consent of the House, and that this may have led to a vote having been taken under false pretences.
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 reason for my decision. I have given that consideration to the representations the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing 681 Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mrs. Winifred Ewing
A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does Mr. Speaker consider that it is in accordance with the best traditions of this House that this matter should have been raised without notice being given to the persons under attack, namely, Plaid Cymru? Had they known of it, I am certain that they would have been here. [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] I do not think it behoves two parties whose attendance is very poor to start on that tack. I point out that the attendance record of hon. Members on this Bench is very good, so all this noise is quite absurd.
It is not in accordance with the best traditions of this House that hon. Members should be attacked without being given notice in advance—

§ Mr. Speaker
I have, of course, noted the hon. Lady's excellent attendance record in the Chamber. However, when an application is made under Standing Order No. 9, no one is able to speak, except Mr. Speaker to give his ruling. That is why the Lord President of the Council was not able to intervene, as no doubt he wished to do. Therefore, this is not a case where I can rule whether notice was given to hon. Members that a matter was being raised.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? I believe that it may be helpful 682 to the whole House. The Lord President said that the statement of Plaid Cymru on this matter was false. He said that in terms today. May I ask you to rule whether it is proper for any party to put out, in an official statement, matters about the conduct of the affairs of this House which are patently untrue?

§ Mr. Speaker
The House is not to pursue the question of the Standing Order No. 9 application which I have rejected. It is out of order to try to keep that issue alive.