HC Deb 14 June 1978 vol 951 cc1000-2
Mr. Henderson

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 decision of the Secretary of State for Industry to release Chrysler UK Limited from its undertaking to build the 1979 light model car at Linwood. The three criteria laid down in Standing Order No. 9 are that the matter should be specific, should be important and should be urgent.

First, this is a specific matter because it relates to a clearly identifiable decision about a clearly identifiable matter. The decision was announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Industry, as recorded at column 390 of Hansard, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). The relevant part of the Secretary of State's reply to her is the last two sentences, at column 391, where the Secretary of State is reported as saying: For sound commercial reasons, Chrysler will not introduce a new small light car next year at the company's Linwood plant as originally envisaged. I am satisfied that the plans are now more favourable as well as being more practicable, and offer better prospects for the future of Chrysler operations in this country and for the security of the Government's loans to the company."—[Official Report, 13th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 391.] The second criterion is that it should be a matter of importance. I believe that that test is satisfied on two particular grounds. The first and most important is, of course, the future of approximately 9,500 employees at the Linwood plant, which is now one of the major employers in Scotland, and whether they are to continue and to improve their output and productivity. I believe that this decision by the Secretary of State for Industry is an attempt to pull the rug from under them and to undermine the efforts that have been made by all concerned to make Linwood a viable proposition. I find it difficult to understand how the Secretary of State can say that these plans are now more favourable that the previous plans.

On the second ground, there is a question of the honour and truthfulness of ministerial assurances in general and those of the Secretary of State for Industry in particular You will perhaps recall, Mr. Speaker, the debate in December 1975 when the Government secured a majority of 12 to vote funds up to £162.5 million to Chrysler UK Limited under the Industry Act 1972. Thirteen of my right hon. and hon. Friends voted for that proposition on the basis of the assurances that we received from the Secretary of State at that time. He then referred specifically to a point that I had put to him, and he said: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East asked about models for Scotland, and mentioned the declaration of intent. The declaration of intent says that a new small conventional-drive car will be introduced in 1977. That will be produced in Scotland, as also will the new light car to be introduced in 1979. I hope that that is the information that the hon. Gentleman required."—[Official Report, 17th December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 1559.] I must say that in my innocence I accepted such a solemn and relatively unambiguous assurance as being sufficiently unusual to come from the Government Front Bench as to carry considerable weight. I recommended to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should support the Government in that operation in order to protect the livelihoods and jobs of the workers at Linwood.

I therefore believe that this matter is urgent. It has come before us only yesterday. We have only just heard the information. As I say, there is a question of the honour and truthfulness of Ministers of the Crown and of the Secretary of State for Industry in particular.

There is a question of the Scottish people being treated with contempt, because it is significant that this decision was announced after the Hamilton by-election and not before it. It is our fear that this presages further attacks on the living standards of the Scottish people by a Labour Government who now show a complete contempt for them.

On that basis, therefore, I seek your consent, Mr. Speaker, to having this important, urgent and serious matter debated as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the decision of the Secretary of State for Industry to release Chrysler UK Limited from its undertaking to build the 1979 light model car at Linwood". I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he 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 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. Powell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything which it is in your power to do to protect the House against the abuse of Standing Order No. 9 procedure by being made the occasion for an ex parte statement, not debatable or refutable at that time, being made in the prime time of the House under cover of the form of asking for leave to move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker

The House will know that there has been a report from a Select Committee dealing with this very point. Unfortunately, the House has not yet discussed the matter. I would very much welcome an opportunity to have a decision from the House on this question.