§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) gave me notice that he would seek to make the same application today that he made yesterday. In making his application he will no doubt refer to any differences which have arisen since I rejected his appeal yesterday; otherwise his action would be near to a gross abuse of our procedure.
§ Mr. Les Huckfield (Nuneaton)I do not intend to trespass on your generosity in seeking to move the Adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker.
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 failure of the British Railways Board to honour its agreement to pay all footplate staff an increase from January this year and its consequences for industry and the travelling public.As I have said in previous applications under Standing Order No. 9, the award was agreed by the Railway Staff National Tribunal in July and by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service in August. This interpretation of that award was agreed yesterday by the finance and general purposes committee of the Trades Union Congress. Therefore, it is not just an isolated award that is being interpreted in one way by one union but an issue that is so specific that it has been endorsed by that TUC committee.I do not need to stress again the important consequences of the failure to pay that award. We are receiving new information day by day. Further information about the industrial consequences has come since yesterday, which shows that we could be in for a bitter and protracted struggle, from which certain sections of railway traffic and services may never recover. Fresh evidence of that has emerged since yesterday.
The matter is so urgent because the dispute has been going on for more than two weeks. It is time that the House had a chance to debate the issue, to hear the full facts and to present its judgment on the issue. I say that because national newspapers such as The Sun seem to be deliberately hell-bent on doing everything to obscure the full facts of the situation.
The only way for hon. Members to learn the full facts is for the House to be given adequate time to debate the issue. I respectfully suggest that, although it has been murmured that one or two of my points could be raised on the Transport (Finance) Bill later this evening, I am sure that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that if hon. Members sought to raise those points at that time they would be trespassing on the generosity of the occupant of the Chair. Therefore, it is out of respect for you, Mr. Speaker, that I say that at this late stage we should have time to debate this important issue. There is no sign of a resolution of the dispute. The House is entitled to debate the matter. Above all, the country is entitled to hear the facts.
§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take points of order after I have replied to the application under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave 749 to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the motion which he has read out and which I read out yesterday, namely,
the failure of the British Railways Board to honour its agreement to pay all footplate staff an increase from January this year, and its consequences for industry and the travelling public.As I said to the House yesterday, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. We all know that. The whole House knows it. The House also knows that my powers are limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a nature that it is essential for the House to change its business today or tomorrow and to give precedence to a three-hour debate—a three-hour debate only—to deal with the matter. I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I 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.
§ Mr. AdleyOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to rule on the parliamentary implications of the fact that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) who is, I believe, speaking in the House on behalf of ASLEF, and presumably is retained by ASLEF, is, for the third time, putting forward what one can only describe with the best will in the world as his side, ASLEF's side, or at least a one-sided interpretation, of events. I do not speak for ASLEF. I do not speak for the British Railways Board. There can be no doubt of the seriousness—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am waiting to hear a point of order.
§ Mr. AdleyIs it in order for the record of the House regularly to contain in Hansard a one-sided account, by use of words by the hon. Gentleman such as "honouring agreements" when no one, so far as I am aware, has sought to argue the case from the other side? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the parliamentary implications of what the hon. Gentleman is doing.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obviously looking at the use of Standing Order No. 9, and I intend to use my discretion when it is necessary.
§ Mr. Robert Atkins (Preston, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and further to what you said when you called the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), according to the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Gentleman represents ASLEF in the House and yet is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. Does not that imply a conflict of interest which should have been declared by the hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order for me.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not have an argument about that, because there is a Ten-Minute Bill that I believe the House is waiting to hear.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was a little concerned to hear you say that you would use your discretion on applications under Standing Order No. 9. As I recall, this was the subject of a debate and vote by the House when the Select Committee on Procedure recommended that they should be subject to your discretion. That recommendation was rejected. The procedure of using Standing Order No. 9 to 750 seek your consent for a debate is important and is jealously guarded by Members on both sides of the House. It was extensively used by the Tories—who are now complaining—during the lorry drivers' strike when a Labour Government were in office. Having taken a vote on this important right, we seek to maintain and extend it.
§ Mr. SpeakerI remind the hon. Gentleman that in order to preserve our rules all hon. Members must take care never to abuse them. That is what I am trying to guard, and I go no further.
§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Regarding the issue whether it is an abuse of Standing Order No. 9 procedure to repeat an application and to put one side of the case, surely it can never be argued in the House that it is an abuse of procedure to put one side of the case? There must be many examples from the winter of discontent of Opposition Members repeatedly submitting applications under Standing Order No. 9.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not comment on the issue of putting one side of the case. My experience is that almost every hon. Member puts one side of the case. That is the purpose of our being here.
§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely it is common ground that for an application under Standing Order No. 9 to be repeated day after day unless a substantial new point has been made is an abuse of the procedures of the House? Therefore, the vital question is: has anything new been added to the application? The fact that appears to be new, that a committee of the TUC has endorsed the ASLEF action on pay rises, is a hair-splitting addition to an already repeated application. I suggest that it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the new substantive point before deciding whether you will hear the same point of order day after day.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) rightly used that fact as one of his arguments since his application yesterday. I accepted it, which is why I took no further action.
§ Mr. HuckfieldFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I intended no discourtesy to you in making a fresh application. In all cases, I have submitted the application in writing according to the traditions and procedures of the House. I hope that my handwriting was legible. I tried my best. In making a third application—I have checked with the Library—I was merely following the precedent that was set by Conservative Members during the alleged winter of discontent, when they submitted applications under Standing Order No. 9 on the same subject on more than one or two consecutive days.
My relationships with ASLEF and the TGWU are adequately agreed between the two unions and are listed in the Register of Members' Interests.
§ Mr. SpeakerThose hon. Members who had the privilege of serving in the House during the previous Parliament will recall that I had occasion to comment then about the necessity of not abusing our procedure under Standing Order No. 9. I have made such comments to hon. Members on both sides of the House.