| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why this country's economic performance has improved so dramatically in recent years is the dramatic improvement in our industrial relations. Eternal vigilance is required by us to ensure that the improved industrial relations record that we have achieved is not forfeited, and that it does not fall prey to the Labour party.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Is not this about dividing up the Post Office, undermining it and
reaching a situation in which privatisation is achieved in the end? Once the Government get their teeth into something they never let it go, despite the strength of public opinion. Everyone should be aware of that, and ensure that we do not accept privatisation.
Mr. Lang: This dispute is not about privatisation, but about the abuse of a public monopoly. Where there is a monopoly there are obligations. The union should be more aware of its obligations to the public interest before calling these damaging strikes.
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East): The President of the Board of Trade is to be congratulated on his actions so far, but will he now meet industry representatives to consider a permanent reduction in the monopoly--from £1 to 30p, for example? That would certainly help companies, such as Document Interlink in my constituency, to provide a first-class service for urgent business mail.
Mr. Lang: That is an issue for consideration at a later date. I think that my hon. Friend would agree with me that the current priority is to ensure that this damaging series of strikes is called off. I have made provision for the lifting of the monopoly not to come into force if the forthcoming series of strikes is cancelled, and for the lifting to last for only one month if the series of strikes is not followed by further strikes. If there is a threat by the union of further strikes, however, I shall announce that we are considering extending the suspension for a further three months. I hope that that will not be necessary.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): Will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry deny that there have been substantial increases in productivity in the Post Office in recent years, and that the matter that is in dispute is a relatively small one, which is now before ACAS? As for the public interest, will not the whole nature of the historic Royal Mail be changed if the monopoly is taken away? How will the public be assured that the Government are taking away the monopoly in the public interest and not in the interests of a few people who run high-speed, limited mail services, and who may recently have had a dinner with the Prime Minister?
Mr. Lang: My statement today is not about the removal of the monopoly in the long term but about the suspension of the monopoly as a means of ensuring that the public interest is protected. If the dispute is as close to resolution as the hon. Gentleman suggests, clearly he should be pressing the union to call off the strikes so that the matter can be peacefully resolved.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): When my right hon. Friend hears about threats to rural post offices, will he remember that similar fears were expressed when British Telecom was privatised? Those fears were groundless, as are these fears about the future of rural post offices. Will he also comment on the fact that the Communication Workers Union contributes £200,000 to the Labour party?
Mr. Lang: I hear what my hon. Friend says in the first part of his question. As for the second part of his question, that fact speaks for itself.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North): Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that none of the business men who have recently paid £100,000 to be members of the Prime Minister's Premier Club will profit from the decision that the right hon. Gentleman has made today?
Mr. Lang: The people who will profit from today's decision--if it brings closer a resolution to this dispute--will be the public.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): What contingency plans does the Secretary of State have if, as a result of his interference, the dispute is racked up to a higher level and the Post Office decides to lock out some or all of its employees?
Mr. Lang: I wish that the Labour party, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, would be more positive and constructive in their approach to the dispute. We should be talking about resolving the dispute. Labour Members have the capacity to bring pressure to bear on their trade union masters to abandon the strikes, so that the dispute can be resolved.
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) rose--
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): He has just walked in.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not just walked in. He has been in his place--I saw him.
Dr. Reid: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As usual, the Under-Secretary of State has got his facts wrong.
I much regret the inconvenience caused to the public, but if there is one thing that they dislike more than inconvenience, it is corruption. If the Secretary of State gets rid of the monopoly, will he give the public a guarantee that no company whose members have paid large amounts of money to dine with the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister will benefit from the lifting of the monopoly? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer yes or no?
Mr. Lang:
The people who will benefit in the short term will be the companies that secure additional business by becoming involved in carrying the mail from which the monopoly has been suspended. The best way in which the hon. Gentleman can deal with his concern is to ensure that the strikes are abandoned. The monopoly would then stay in place.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin):
As the Secretary of State has failed to answer this question twice, I will repeat it slowly. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical guarantee that no one who is currently paying large sums of money to the Tory party, via the Premier Club or any other means, will benefit from the industrial dispute?
Mr. Lang:
I give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not too sensitive a soul, but is not there a convention that Ministers make statements by leave of the House? That implies some kind of condition--that the statement will be about a particular matter. When the President of the Board of Trade answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) we heard a load of pre-packaged abuse that bore no relevance to the legitimate questions that she asked. Do you, have no power to cut short statements that are not about the subject to which they purport to relate?
Madam Speaker:
Ministers do not require the leave of the House or my authority to make a statement--they have every right. The words "With the leave of the House" are simply a turn of phrase, and it is quite incorrect for a Minister to use them. Ministers can make statements in the House whenever they wish.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have hardly finished. I was asked whether I can cut short a statement if I felt that it was not dealing with the subject in question. The straightforward answer is no. I do not know with which matters a statement deals until the Minister rises in his place to make it.
Mr. Spearing:
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We fully understand everything that you have said to this point, but surely it is within your power to cut short any right hon. or hon. Member--whether or not he is a Minister--who fails to answer a question but introduces new material that is abusive and irrelevant? Will you consider that particular power--which I believe you have?
Madam Speaker:
I sit in the Chair hour after hour, and I hear Front Benchers and Back Benchers in all parts of the House introduce material that is not relevant. If I were to interfere every time that happened, I would be interfering every three or four minutes. I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously--but the House would hear much more from me if I were to take it to its logical conclusion. I said not too long ago that there have been numerous occasions recently when hon. Members have not dealt with the matter in question, be it a statement or question. Ministers and Back Benchers are drifting too far away from the point, and I will do my utmost to bring them all back to the subject on the Order Paper. I believe that the House requires that of me.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |