HC Deb 03 December 1980 vol 995 cc276-8
Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange)

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 critical level of unemployment in the inner city of Liverpool, namely, in my constituency, Liverpool, Scotland Exchange.

We had a debate on unemployment last week. I sat throughout the debate for five and a half hours and intervened twice. Incidentally, neither of the Liverpool Tories was present. That shows how interested they are—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech on the general issue. He must, as I know that he will, say why the matter is important, urgent and specific.

Mr. Parry

Last Thursday I received a written reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. I asked how many people were unemployed in the Liverpool, Scotland Exchange constituency. My constituency is small, with fewer than 32,000 electors. I was staggered by the Under-Secretary of State's reply. He said that nearly 20,000 people were registered as unemployed in my constituency—a staggering 65 per cent.

When I tried to raise the issue on Thursday during the economic debate, Government Members, particularly the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), started to laugh and joke. If the hon. Gentleman tries to make a joke of this again, he will have to answer to me outside the Chamber.

On Merseyside, 30,000 young people under the age of 20 are unemployed. The problem is particularly serious among coloured youths. Discussions have taken place between the Commission for Racial Equality and the chief constable about tensions in Liverpool. We should have a debate on the matter, because it is critical arid there could be trouble on our streets.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the fact that in his constituency of fewer than 32,000 electors there are 20,000 unemployed, amounting to more than 65 per cent. of the total.

No one in the House can have failed to listen with anxiety and concern to the hon. Gentleman. As he and the House know, I do not decide whether the matter should be debated. I merely decide whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow.

The House knows that 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 do not underestimate the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must rule that has submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

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 management of the National Girobank to move jobs in Giro from Merseyside to Birmingham and establish a new centre for Giro in Birmingham.

The matter is urgent and requires an emergency debate. The proposals by the Giro management are being consummated today. The management has stated that today a commitment will be made to a lease on property in Birmingham.

There is an emergency because the proposals could mark the beginning of the end of Giro in Bootle. When a company opens a centre outside Merseyside, recent history shows that Merseyside's activities are closed and centralised elsewhere. For example, that has happened with Dunlop and Lucas Aerospace. If Giro's future expansion takes place outside Bootle, the future of Bootle itself will be jeopardised because, after the local authorities, Giro is the largest single employer of labour in the area.

The matter is urgent because the decision marks a sudden change of policy—from proposing a second Giro centre in Merseyside and regionalisation of the service by setting up a sales and marketing service in up to seven regions, to a new policy involving a second centre outside Merseyside. That will take not only sales and marketing services away from Bootle but customer credit, account openings, personal loans and accounts management divisions and the jobs that go with them. That will enable management to abandon regionalisation.

The matter is urgent and should be debated, now because the proposals could lead to industrial action by the unions. The unions passionately wish to avoid such action. They do not wish to harm Giro or its image. They are looking to democracy in this House and the efforts of right hon. and hon. Members to avoid the need for any such industrial action. We should not let them down.

The issue is urgent and should be debated, as moving any jobs from Merseyside, where unemployment has reached astronomical levels, is an emergency. The action by Giro's management symbolises Merseyside's total crisis. The area is treated with contempt, as if it is dispensable. Merseyside is already overburdened by hardship and human suffering. Anything which will add to the crisis must be an emergency.

Giro and Bootle are synonymous. I beg the House to enable us to keep it that way.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the decision of the management of the National Girobank to move jobs in Giro from Merseyside to Birmingham and establish a new centre for Giro in Birmingham.

I listened with concern to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that no question of sympathy or otherwise on my part or the serious argument that he advances is involved in my decision. I have to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.

I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman, but must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.