HC Deb 16 February 1978 vol 944 cc680-2
Mr. Heffer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask your indulgence because I was not able to give you notice of this matter before 12 o'clock today as I was involved in a meeting.

I should like to raise under Standing Order No. 9 a matter that is definite, urgent and of public importance, namely the proposal of British Leyland to close No. 2 plant at Speke, Liverpool, which will throw out of work 3,000 workers in an area which already has 90,000 unemployed.

Mr. Speaker

I wish that I could give the hon. Gentleman leave to make his application, though I am not saying that I would grant it, but the rules of the House provide that notice should have been sent to my office this morning. If an application is not put in before 12 o'clock or does not arise in the course of the day's business, it would be unfair to others for me to allow the application to be made. I should be opening a door that I would never be able to close. This has to be done in the interests of the House, and I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman is unable to pursue the matter in this way, serious as it undoubtedly is.

Mr. Heffer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that I only got the notice from British Leyland after 12 o'clock? I did not have it before. I had to see the notice from Leyland before knowing precisely what it was talking about.

Mr. Speaker

We all knew from the national Press this morning. We had the details on the news last night. I want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, but I must protect the rules of the House, and in this case the hon. Gentleman must seek another opportunity through the Order Paper or in some other way to advance the interests of his constituents in this matter.

I advise the hon. Gentleman to use the normal procedures which are available to him. He could follow up the matter next week at business questions or, possibly, through the usual channels.

Mr. Heffer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but you referred to the fact that this information was in the national newspapers and on the news. That is true, but I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers. I waited because it was important to see precisely what the firm had actually said.

I received the document after 12 o'clock today. It clearly explained the company's point of view on why it was closing the plant. It was on that basis that I sought leave to raise the matter.

I shall not pursue the matter further now, but I shall endeavour to pursue it as hard as I possibly can because I do not think that we can allow 3,000 workers to be thrown out of work in an area of 90,000 unemployed without trying to raise the matter here, which, for me, is the most important place to try to settle matters of this kind.

Mr. Speaker

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that he feels very strongly about this matter, but he is a good parliamentarian and he acknowledges the difficulty in which I find myself.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your ruling, you said that if a matter came to the Floor of the House, it would be in order to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. Has it not now come to the Floor of the House and could not some other hon. Member make such an application?

Mr. Speaker

That is a theological point.