§ Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)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 projected one-day stoppage in social security offices on Friday 3 December in support of the dispute in the Birmingham local offices on manning levels".I realise, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot deploy all the arguments in the case, but a statement of some facts about this serious situation is essential. I have to satisfy you, Mr. Speaker, of the specific nature of the matter.
The dispute in the Birmingham local offices on manning levels and therefore on working conditions has continued for 11 weeks without the Department of Health and Social Security being able to resolve it. A 21 per cent. increase in supplementary benefit claims alone in the last year has been accompanied by a 2½ per cent. cut in staff levels. So intolerable did conditions become that most of the local offices in Birmingham became affected. As a consequence, Friday's national stoppage is in support of the Birmingham staff.
The matter is important because many thousands of people on low incomes will be affected by the stoppage in every part of the land and in every constituency, including yours, Mr. Speaker, and mine. The hardship will add to that already being felt in Birmingham where £1 million has been paid to claimants from emergency centres. Already there have been assaults on staff in the emergency centres and tenants in a local authority area are not having their rents paid during the dispute. If the one-day stoppage escalates, the hardship and misery throughout Britain where half the population receive one or another social security benefit is bound to worsen. The importance of the matter is easily demonstrated.
The matter is urgent because slightly less than two days remain in which to try to avert the immediate action and to give the Government an opportunity to try to solve the underlying cause of the national stoppage in Birmingham. This application, in my view, satisfies the three conditions of the Standing Order. This House has a duty to make its voice heard to prevent the possible collapse of a vital social service. If it does not fulfil this duty, democracy itself will be weakened.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave, under Standing Order No. 9, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
the projected one-day stoppage in social security offices on Friday 3 December in support of the dispute in the Birmingham local offices on manning levels".The House listened with concern to the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman, who drew our attention 268 to a serious matter. As he and the House know, I do not decide whether this matter should be discussed. I merely decide whether it must be discussed tonight or tomorrow night in an emergecy debate.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 reasons for my decision. After listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, I fear that I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of this point of order. As it arises out of what has just happened, it would have been impossible to do so. Many hon. Members will take the view that our proceedings depend very much on practice and precedent. Is it not the case that the moving of a motion under Standing Order No. 9 has normally been regarded as a defence for Back Benchers who lack the normal opportunities through the usual channels that are open to the Front Bench to arrange debates? It is only during the last 18 months that the practice has grown of Front-Bench Members requesting debates under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider this matter to see whether my submission is correct? If it is correct, there may be a case, I submit, for referring the matter to the Procedure Committee.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Equal rights belong to Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members in such applications.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, do not need reminding, but there are perhaps hon. Members who do not recollect that the issue of Standing Order No. 9 went before the Procedure Committee which made a recommendation to the House. The House voted overwhelmingly that the Standing Order No. 9 procedure should be retained. It ill becomes Tory Members to carp about Standing Order No. 9 applications when they were raising one every day during the lorry drivers' strike.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is correct. The House declined to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure. Both sides of the House have used the machinery well. They know how it should be used.