HC Deb 07 February 1984 vol 53 cc771-2

4.8 pm

Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the proposed loss of more than 1,100 jobs at the Liverpool British American Tobacco factory.

This is a specific matter because it deals with further unemployment in an area already savaged by mass unemployment and in a constituency in which, according to Government figures, more than 35 per cent. of the population are unemployed, especially in the Vauxhall, Everton and Netherfield areas where the British American Tobacco Company is situated. Only three years ago, the area witnessed the tragic closure of the Tate and Lyle refinery with the loss of 2,000 jobs. The true level of unemployment in the region is between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. A statement by BAT shows the cruel and ugly face of capitalism. Hundreds of decent people who have worked for that company for decades and made handsome profits for it are now being thrown on the scrap heap with no possibility of alternative employment in the area. This follows other multinational companies such as Allied Lyons, Nabisco, United Biscuits and Kraft Foods.

The recent takeover—

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will take the point of order later.

Mr. Parry

The recent takeover by BAT of the Eagle Star insurance company involved more than £900 million. Many workers in BAT rightly feel, and I agree, that the price of that takeover is the loss of their jobs.

I believe that it is urgent that the Government should announce from the Dispatch Box that they are prepared to intervene and to approach the company to see whether it will change its mind. The Government must now change its tack about not intervening in commercial decisions. No Government, not even the Conservatives with their selfish and full support for monetarist policies, can allow the destruction and death of an inner city area and community.

An early-day motion which I tabled today has already attracted more than 50 signatures. For those reasons, I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to allow my application.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the proposed loss of 1,100 jobs at the Liverpool British American Tobacco factory".

I have listened with the greatest sympathy to the hon. Gentleman. I am well aware that any job losses anywhere, but particularly in Liverpool, are a very serious matter; however, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he will have to find other methods of raising the matter. I regret that I do not consider it appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Later—

Mr. Wiggin

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for having interrupted in the middle of an application under Standing Order No. 10.

I understand that, traditionally, applications under Standing Order No. 10—or Standing Order No. 9, as it used to be — always relate to matters of national importance. I am sure that the whole House has great sympathy for the hon. Member who made such an application today and the problems to which he referred, but it is surely an abuse of the time of the House in an important part of the day if matters of total constituency interest are raised. May I direct the attention of the House to that important point?

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not responsibility for determining whether a Standing Order No. 10 application is in order a matter for you? I am sure that you are fully aware of my hon. Friend's reasons for raising the matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say to the House through you that the hon. Member for wherever he comes from has a cheek to raise such a point of order in relation to people being thrown out of work when it is his party's Government who have put more than 4 million people on the dole? As you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate, when the Labour Government were in power and the Conservatives were sitting here, day after day we had not just one or even two applications under Standing Order No. 9, as it then was, but sometimes as many as four such applications from the then Tory Opposition. I do not recall any of those being as important as some of the matters now raised under that procedure. I believe that if 600 or 700 people in a constituency are being thrown out of work willy-nilly as a result of the Tory Government's policies the Government should hear from my right hon. and hon. Friends about the disaster that they are causing. It is a cheek to raise such a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

The Standing Order No. 10 procedure is very precious to Back Bench Members. The events in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) are of grave concern to that hon. Member. Had I judged the matter to be out of order, I should certainly have said so at an earlier stage. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) was absolutely correct in what he said about that.

Mr. Wiggin

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to refer to me as "the hon. Member for wherever he comes from"?

Mr. Skinner

You were lucky. It could have been something else.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that we will leave it at that.