§ Mr. GowMr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the confusion caused by the statement of the Attorney-General in the House of Commons on 25 January 1979 in regard to the law of picketing and the urgent need to redefine that law".The three criteria are that the matter should be specific, important and urgent.This is a specific matter. You, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair, and it would be a miracle if you were other than wholly confused about the state of the law, having listened to the exposition given by the right hon and learned Gentleman.
The matter is important. It is difficult to visualise any matter which is of greater concern to the overwhelming majority of our constituents than the law of picketing. Indeed, the House and the country were waiting agog to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the nation exactly what the law was and precisely what the Government were proposing to do in order to improve the law. The House and the nation, not for the first time, waited in vain.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I seek to satisfy you that this is an urgent matter. A week ago today, the Prime Minister came to the House waving a piece of paper which was the code of practice issued by the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Prime Minister then told the House:
The code explicitly provides that…it rules out secondary picketing"—[Official Report, 18 January 1979; Vol. 960, c. 1957–53.]Secondary picketing has not been ruled out by the code of practice agreed by the Transport and General Workers' Union. The undertaking which was given to the House by the Prime Minister has been ineffective. Secondary picketing goes on, and the statement of the Attorney-General today has done nothing to increase the prospects that secondary picketing will be removed. In those circumstances, I submit that it is urgent and vital that the House of Commons should debate the Attorney-General's statement and the overriding need to redefine and update the law on picketing.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member asks 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 confusion caused by the statement of the Attorney-General in the House of Commons on 25 January 1979 in regard to the law of picketing and the urgent need to redefine that law.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 listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.