Civil Service Dispute (Keighley) (Hansard, 16 July 1981)

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
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 Government's provocative action in suspending civil servants in the unemployment benefit office of the Department of Health and Social Security in Keighley.
The Government's action represents a widening of the Civil Service dispute. The matter is specific because 25 unemployment benefit officers at Keighley have been suspended as part of the Government's obdurate and unbending attitude in the lengthy Civil Service dispute.
I believe that the officers were locked out on the instructions of the Government to escalate the confrontation on the backs of the unemployed. In their dispute with the Government, the civil servants have strenuously avoided this area for action. By their refusal to allow arbitration, the Government, and not the civil servants, have created this situation.
Officers of the DHSS in Keighley were instructed to carry out work undertaken by the 25 suspended officers. They refused and, consequently, several have been suspended. This afternoon the complete office is out, and whether they return is to be decided tomorrow.
I understand that the Government are suspending officers in similar circumstances in other areas of the country. The matter is vital to thousands of people who are dependent on unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit. Bradford metropolitan council is providing an emergency service with the full co-operation of the Council of Civil Service Unions and NALGO. The unemployment benefit officers offered to pay unemployment benefit in cash, but the management, acting on Government instructions, refused to allow that to take place.
The matter is urgent because if the Government continue to behave in this provocative fashion the dispute and unrest could widen with widespread consequences and this issue could no longer be separated from the subject for debate in the House today. It is also urgent because a resolution of the dispute is needed to avoid hardship to those already suffering hardship imposed by the Government who put them in the dole queue in the first place.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman gave me notice 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, 1396 the Government's provocative action in suspending civil servants in the unemployment benefit office the Department of Health and Social Security in Keighley. 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 listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as, I am sure, did the whole House, when he referred to the difficulties that have been caused, but I must rule that this submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was wrong in seeking leave to move the Adjournment of the House, but could you, Mr. Speaker, please refer to the Procedure Committee the whole content of Standing Order No. 9?
It seems to many of us that the Standing Order is being abused and that constituency, as distinct from national, matters are frequently raised in applications made under the Standing Order. The whole matter should be looked at again by the Procedure Committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the usual channels in the House. It is a matter for them.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the usual channels or yourself deal with this matter and take into account the number of times the Standing Order No. 9 procedure has been used in the House, I hope that the powers that be will also take into account the period of the so-called winter of discontent in 1978–79, when the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) was in Opposition and used the Standing Order No. 9 procedure many times during that period. I hope that all the occasions will be carefully catalogued.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.