§ Mr. SpeakerI had rather assumed that the statement that we had today had subsumed the hon. Member's application under Standing Order No. 10. We had a long run on it and an important debate is to follow. I cannot stop the hon. Member from making his application, but it would be an abuse of our procedures.
§ Mr. NellistI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing an urgent, specific and important matter that should take precedence over tomorrow's business, namely,
the refusal of the National Coal Board to grant an amnesty to those miners sacked during the past 12 months of the strike.The matter is urgent because, despite the decision of yesterday's delegate conference, we heard in the House one hour ago that already Scotland and the Kent areas of the NUM have refused to go back to work. No peace in the remaining areas will be seen until justice is granted for the 728 miners so far sacked out of nearly 10,000 arrests made in the past 12 months.The matter is specific because the House must deal with the double standards of the NCB which has sacked striking miners, often for offences such as the theft of £4-worth of slag coal, processing those miners through the supermarket courts, while welcoming with open arms convicted miners who were prepared to return to work. Charges of blackmail have been levelled against the Government, the NCB and the police, and the House should debate the several occasions when those bodies have agreed to drop charges if miners were prepared to break the strike. Convicted miners have served their sentences and are now to be doubly punished.
We also need a debate about those miners who have been found innocent. I raised the case of Clive Ham in the Chamber when it first arose. That concerned a miner in Coventry who, along with his 18-month-old son, was arrested and put in a police cell. He was charged and arraigned before a court, and between those two procedures he was sacked. The court found him not guilty but the NCB has refused to withdraw the letter of dismissal.
Almost one hour ago exactly the Secretary of State for Energy said:
acquittal is not a guarantee that someone has not committed an offence.The Secretary of State is setting himself up as judge, jury and executioner—and that from a member of a party that calls itself the party of law and order.Those miners are guilty only of fighting for union policy. If the Government seriously want a workable arrangement between the union and the NCB, which I 676 seriously doubt, there should be a debate tomorrow to allow the Government to announce a general amnesty. [Interruption.] I hope that the public school hooligans will restrain themselves for 30 seconds.
I have been proud to work alongside the miners of Coventry and Warwickshire during the past 12 months. I feel nothing but respect for the miners, their wives and families, who have resisted everything that the Government have thrown at them and who have fought the Government to a standstill. The 11 miners from Keresly colliery in Coventry who have been sacked, four of whom were released from prison last Monday after being convicted of an affray at their own house, have been sacked by the NCB in Coventry and Warwickshire for so-called industrial misconduct. The cases of those men are symptomatic of the 728 men dismissed nationally. That has happened during a period when no police officer has been dismissed for his conduct during the strike.
The matter is urgent, specific and important. That double-dealing and the statement of the Secretary of State one hour ago should be fully exposed in a debate in the House tomorrow.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the National Coal Board to grant an amnesty to those miners sacked during the past 12 months of the strike.I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.