PLESSEY TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. (Hansard, 3 March 1977)

§ Mr. Loyden
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 statement made by Plessey Telecommunications Ltd. that the effects of the Post Office cuts since 1974 will cause a net reduction of about 4,000 jobs and some factory closures in the electro-mechanical systems sector. That statement, made yesterday, is a further blow to employment on Merseyside and in Sunderland. There is an urgent need for Government intervention to stop these redundancies and to carry out a full inquiry into the Post Office decision to change its ordering programme.
The House has been made fully aware today, and, indeed, over the last few months, of the unemployment problem not only on Merseyside but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Evidence has been advanced here today that Labour Back Benchers have reached the point at which we feel that the present Government ought to take seriously the questions that we raise about the grave employment situation that exists on Merseyside, in the North-West and in other parts of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. and hon. Friends from the Merseyside area have drawn to the attention of the House the present unemployment figures. Whatever the Government say about the policies they are pursuing, it is quite evident that not only have they had no effect even on bottoming out the dramatic unemployment figures but that day by day the unemployment figures are rising.
As far as we are concerned, this is a clear indication that the Government's policy on jobs and unemployment requires a dramatic change. It is not sufficent for Ministers to say that they are sympathetic to the arguments advanced in this place about the unemployment situation in the various regions. It is the responsibility of Ministers, representing the movement to which we all belong, to turn their faces towards the emerging problems in the regions and to take such action as is necessary to resolve those problems.
636 The telecommunications industry on Merseyside is one that has a work mix that is affected directly and almost exclusively by the vacillations of the Post Office. I shall want to make a few comments about the Post Office shortly. One of the things—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. I know that he feels very deeply about this question. However, what he ought to do is to explain why the matter is urgent, specific and important.

§ Mr. Loyden
I am coming to that point now, Mr. Speaker. What I was saying was that the urgency and importance of the problem have been spoken about in this place day after day. I am sure that in that sense the House is fully aware of the importance and urgency of the problem. What I am trying to point out is that there is a need at this stage not co allow these redundancies to take place—as may well happen—and then have a post-mortem examination of the reasons for them with 4,000 more people out of work and on Merseyside an increase, by a single stroke, of 2 per cent. in the unemployment figure.
I need not add anything further to that sort of argument for the House to appreciate the urgency of this problem. What I am trying to point out is that there has been a conflict of opinion between, on the one hand, the Post Office and, on the other hand, Plessey in regard to the decisions that they have made, which will result in these redundancies. In that respect, a veil of secrecy has surrounded the talks that have been taking place between Plessey and the Post Office, and the work force knows little or nothing about those talks and the decisions that were taken. Those talks and decisions have culminated in 4,000 people losing their jobs. One thing that we must understand is that the secrecy that has surrounded the talks has been a matter of major concern to the people in the industry and to Members of Parliament representing the areas that are being affected.
One of the reasons why I wish to impress on you, Mr. Speaker, the urgency of a debate on this matter is that it cannot be seen in isolation. It is part of the general problem of unemployment and, again, it shows quite clearly that the 637 unemployment figures are continuing to rise. There is, therefore, an urgent need to discuss this matter on the basis of whether we are satisfied that the Post Office and the telecommunications industry—in this particular case Plessey—have carried out the correct rôle concerning the industry. The fault, in that sense, does not lie totally on the side of the Post Office. The Plessey organisation has continually disregarded the need for investment in the industry, and in that sense—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman that he must not argue the case that he would argue if an emergency debate were granted. He must now make his case for having the debate.

§ Mr. Loyden
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am to some extent prejudging your decision. I hope that that does not weaken my argument in the least or weaken the sympthy that I hope to gain from you when you make that decision.
This situation is both urgent and specific, and it falls within the requirements of Standing Order No. 9. The issue of personal taxation that we are to debate in the House today is something that can well wait while we discuss the loss of 4,000 jobs to workers on Merseyside and in Sunderland.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member 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 statement made by Plessey Telecommunications Ltd. that the effects of the Post Office cuts since 1974 will cause a net reduction of about 4,000 jobs and some factory closures in the electro-mechanical systems sector. 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. The whole House heard the exchanges this afternoon, and I realise that this is a very serious problem. I also have to take account of what I heard this afternoon. I am not able to rule that the hon. Member's submission falls within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Madden
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Ogden
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Loyden
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
There can be no point of order on my ruling.

§ Mr. Madden
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect to you, many of us are often confused as to the criteria upon which—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite clearly about to question my ruling, and that I shall not permit.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not taking points of order on my ruling. If any hon. Member tries to raise such a point of order, I shall order him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. Madden
Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was in no may seeking to challenge your ruling on this occasion or on any other, and I understand the reasons for your decision. I am seeking to raise a matter connected with the fact that earlier today the Prime Minister indicated that extra-parliamentary agencies are to consider this matter, namely, that a professor is to undertake an inquiry. The National Enterprise Board will also be involved.
I am seeking from you, Mr. Speaker, an assurance that in this situation you will not preclude the possibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) or any other hon. Member from seeking to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9 in the future. The situation is a developing one in which extra-parliamentary agencies may be heavily involved.

§ Mr. Speaker
I owe the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) an apology, and I offer it to him in front of the House. Long experience had taught me to expect something else. I am able to tell the hon. Gentleman that applications under Standing Orders can be made at other appropriate times. It happened this very week. But I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman should bring forward an application tomorrow.

§ Mr. Ogden
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I bear in mind your ruling, and I am not challenging it in any way. I would be most foolish to try to do so.
Will you give the House guidance on the subject that is to be debated next under the Adjournment motion? Will you confirm, whatever the custom and practice of the House, that if you call my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) to speak in that debate he would be entitled to talk about any subject? The subject to be debated by the House is the burden of personal taxation, and that can be seen in two ways. The criticism might come from Conservative Members that there is too great a burden of taxation. On the other hand, the criticism from my hon. Friend might be that because of the redundancy notices given by Plessey, arbitrarily and unilaterally, the workers concerned will have no opportunity of paying taxation. I hope that the House will agree to be generous to my hon. Friend if he is able to take part in the debate.

§ Mr. Loyden
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that I went through what are termed "the normal channels" in order to raise this matter, and that for three weeks I have been putting my name down in the hope of getting an Adjournment debate on Plessey. May we have an indication of what the position would be—I am not seeking a firm commitment, of course—if the matter was raised with you, Mr. Speaker, on Monday?

§ Mr. Speaker
May I let out a little secret? I would have thought that by now the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) would have heard that he had been fortunate to get an Adjournment debate next Thursday.