§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the breakdown in talks two hours ago between the Post Office and the Union of Communication Workers and the possibility of a national postal strike.The matter is specific in that it relates entirely to the delivery of the Royal Mail and the working conditions under which the men and women who deliver it throughout the year are now forced to work. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already intervened in the dispute in that he has instructed the Post Office that it must not concede more than a one-hour reduction in a 42-hour working week. No other working person works a 42-hour week — [HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] That one hour reduction would be financed from productivity deals which would be concluded between the union and the Post Office, so it will be seen immediately that the Secretary of State, by intervening—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must say why there must be an emergency debate on this matter.
§ Mr. EwingI am showing that the matter is specific. I appreciate your stricture, Mr. Speaker. The intervention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, giving instructions to the Post Office in relation to these discussions, is serious and specific.
The matter is important because 16 years ago, when we last had a national postal strike, there were serious consequences for industry, commerce and the public generally. At that time, private companies were allowed to deliver the mail. They charged a fee 10 times the cost of the postage stamp and when the strike was over they handed the Post Office thousands of items for which they had charged 10 times the cost of the postage, but which they had not delivered. They were then delivered by postmen returning to work on 11 March 1971, after that long nine-week strike.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has now had his time.
§ Mr. EwingThe matter is urgent in that in some areas the strike has already commenced and the urgency is increased by the necessity for the House to have an opportunity to express its views before the strike becomes widespread.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the breakdown in talks between the Post Office and the Union of Communication Workers and the possibility of a national postage strike as a result.Again, I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that this matter meets the criteria laid down under the Standing Orders. Therefore, I cannot submit his his application to the House.
§ Later—
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to the question of the possibility of a postal strike?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have dealt with that matter. For reasons which I have already stated, I did not feel able to grant an emergency debate.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhether there will be a postal strike is not a point of order. This takes time from the Opposition's two debates, in which there is great pressure from hon. Members to speak. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he cannot claim a point of order when it would not be right for me to hear it.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman may have one try, but that is all.
§ Mr. BennWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, I know the rules of the House perfectly well. You need not give your reasons for refusing my hon. Friend's request for an emergency debate. I do not question that. What I am saying is this.
The Post Office has been in the public service since 1666 because it a public interest. It is our oldest public industry. A dispute of this kind is not a matter solely between the Post Office management and the unions, although postal workers actually work a 48-hour week. The point is that the Secretary of State has intervened on behalf of Parliament—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order for me. As I said to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), it will be necessary, and possible, to find other ways of bringing the matter before the House.