§ 4.8 pm
§ Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)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 judgment in the House of Lords in the case of the London borough of Bromley v the Greater London Council".The issue is specific in so far as it requires the termination of a London fares policy put before the voters of London in a manifesto that elected members, on gaining office, have implemented. It is further specific in that the judgment will limit and qualify the meaning of section 3 of the Transport (London) Act, which provides grants for any purpose only in so far as those grants apply to fares policy.The matter is important, because it will require the GLC to repay a precept that it has already collected and to levy a further precept to meet a deficit arising not only from its own fares policy, but from that of its elected predecessor. The matter is also important because it will probably bring about the most massive reductions in transport services in our capital city, which is already seriously congested.
The matter is urgent because consideration has already been delayed by an extensive legal process, which has rendered the issue sub judice in the House. It is also urgent because the issues raised need correction within the existing financial year. In addition, the matter is urgent because elected members of the GLC and officials who, until now, have acted in pursuance of the policy, believing it to be legal, are now held to have acted illegally. The House must redress that situation. Finally, the matter is urgent because the interpretation by the other place of the Transport (London) Act is now such as to deny the voters of London their democratic right to choose which fares policy they want their elected body to operate.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning 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 judgment in the House of Lords in the case of the London borough of Bromley v. the Greater London Council".There have been many exchanges in the House this afternoon on this question and hon. Members are aware that a debate will take place tomorrow on London Transport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I know that the House is aware of that, because I have heard references to it. I am prepared for the debate to be wide enough to cover anything relating to the judgment. I shall ensure that the five-hour debate tomorrow will be wide enough to cover the whole spectrum of the issue raised this afternoon.I listened with anxious concern to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and to the remarks made by the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision. I am trying to be as helpful as possible to the House. However, after 464 careful consideration I must rule that the right 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. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your latter remarks, Mr. Speaker, you followed the precedent—which I fully respect—of telling us that you would not give the reasons for your judgment. Indeed, if you were to do so, we should become involved in considerable complications. However, in the earlier part of your remarks, you referred to tomorrow's debate and I understood the implication to be that that debate, in some respects, affects the issue. Indeed, I cannot understand why you referred to it unless it does affect the issue.
In those circumstances, it is right for us to say—in reference not to your final judgment, but to your earlier remarks—that a discussion of the matter in such terms is unsatisfactory to the Opposition. A debate under Standing Order No. 9 would give us the right to vote, if we so wish, on an effective matter. In addition, we all know that a fresh debate on a Friday, announced on a Thursday, would be a strange occurrence, particularly if it were to involve a vote.
We may have to raise an application to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 9 again on Monday, because this matter is extremely important. It is in the interests of the House and of those affected by the judgment that the matter should be cleared up as speedily as possible. Therefore, I hope that the House will not interpret your words, Mr. Speaker, as meaning—in any way—that we subscribe to the view that tomorrow's debate is any substitute for the type of debate that we seek.
§ Mr. SpeakerI was trying to be helpful to the House, because the urgency of the matter had been stressed so much. I thought that tomorrow would be sooner than Monday. However, I understand and accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I shall try to be helpful to those who wish, tomorrow, to raise the matter. However, my ruling stands.
§ Mr. FootFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not contesting your ruling. Of course, it is true that Friday comes before Monday. We all understand that, and I accept that part of your judgment without any qualification. However, we believe that we have the right to seek a debate on a matter of urgency and to seek that debate afresh on Monday, if we are denied it now. Tomorrow's debate is no substitute for the debate that we are asking for.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House must take note that the Leader of the Opposition has given notice that he will renew the application for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 on Monday. Therefore, I hope that no other hon. Members will try to raise points of order on my ruling. Perhaps I was wrong to be as generous as I have been about tomorrow's debate. I was trying to help hon. Members.
§ Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will forgive me for raising this point with you, Mr. Speaker, but I had always understood that there was no question of arguing, in any respect, about a ruling that you had given on an application under Standing Order No. 9. For about three minutes, the 465 Leader of the Opposition has not only argued, but has made the points that he will raise when he seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on Monday. That is a most extraordinary way of arguing the case for raising a debate under Standing Order No. 9 and of getting round your ruling.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. When I give a ruling under Standing Order No. 9 that ruling is not pursued. The House will be aware that I have always allowed extra latitude to the Leader of the Opposition. That is why I extended the courtesy. Otherwise, I should have intervened much earlier. However, the courtesy stands the House in good stead.
I should tell the House that I shall not take any more points of order that have anything to do with the ruling. I have given my ruling on today's application.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall not take any other points of order on this.
§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While not in the least questioning your ruling—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. May I tell the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that I shall take a very poor view of things if he returns to the subject on which I have refused to take any further points of order.
§ Mr. GrimondFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I merely seek further elucidation about tomorrow's debate. I understand that that debate will be confined to London. However, the ruling of the other place has considerable implications, which go beyond London. For example, Scottish local authorities have constantly been told by the Government that if they wish to subsidise local transport, it is up to them. During tomorrow's debate, will it be in order to raise the wider question of local authority subsidisation of local transport?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have already told the House that I—or whoever is in the Chair—will be as tolerant as possible during tomorrow's debate and will allow wide references to be made within the ambit of the motion.
§ Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the possibility of a Bill of indemnity. After a previous High Court ruling my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) ultimately succeeded—after some difficulty—in pointing out that after such a judgment it might be necessary quickly to indemnify those who innocently stood in immediate danger.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he knows that that is a matter for the Government and not for me. It is for the Opposition to raise that matter at the proper time. I cannot rule that a Bill must be introduced; that is not within my powers, as well he knows. I hope that tomorrow, when I shall be in the Chair, every opportunity will be given to hon. Members. That is without prejudice to the application that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated he will make on Monday.