§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI beg to ask the Postmaster General if he could inform the House how long the Rule prohibiting postmen from attending public meetings has been in force?
§ MR. RAIKESThere is no Rule prohibiting postmen from attending public meetings. In March, 1866, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who was then Postmaster General, made a Regulation (which has been placed on the Table of this House during the present Session on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Glamorganshire) requiring meetings of postmen convened for the consideration of official questions to be held in post office buildings, and subject, consequently, to the permission in each case of the authorities. This Rule was relaxed by my Order on April 19, 1890, and postmen are now free to hold such meetings anywhere, and without asking permission from the Department, if they comply 854 with the Regulations, which I have more than once stated in this House.
§ MR. CONYBEAREMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Rules of the Service under which he has recently punished the postmen for attending a meeting on Clerken well Green, and state when and by whom those Rules were framed?
The following Questions upon the same subject were also upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Cam borne Division:—To ask the Post master General whether he will state how many hours per diem the several classes of Post Office employés are required to work, and whether, if any postmen take part in a meeting after the hours of their own particular work, they are still liable to punishment, on the ground that the meeting is taking place during the working hours of the Service generally? To ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the extreme discontent prevailing amongst the Post Office employés, he will consider the advisability of instituting a full inquiry into their grievances, and whether, pending the result of such inquiry, he will re-instate the men he has recently punished? and to ask the Postmaster General whether he is correctly reported to have stated that the postmen are at liberty to attend meetings either indoors or out of doors, provided they conform to the Rules of the Service, and that one of such Rules is that they should prevent any outsider from at tending such meetings; whether he can state what measures the men ought to adopt to prevent an outsider attending one of their open-air meetings, and whether the presence of a Member of Parliament would constitute such a breach of the Post Office Rules as would justify the recent rigorous punishment of the men?
§ MR. RAIKESI propose to answer the whole of these questions together. There is no Code defining the measure of punishment to be inflicted for insubordination and defiance of Rules. This is a question which the Postmaster General has to decide for himself upon each case according to its merits. I may add, at the same time, that it has been to me a matter of unfeigned regret that any postmen should have allowed themselves to be so misled as to make punishment 855 necessary; but I am sure that the gene ral body of postmen will see that they have left me no alternative but to vindicate the authority of the Department. Generally speaking, the duties of a Post Office servant occupy him for eight hours out of the 24. Postmen render themselves liable to punishment, because they take part in a meeting without complying with the prescribed conditions, not because the meeting is held at a time when some other postmen are at work. A Departmental Committee has, for some time, been engaged in inquiring into alleged grievances in one large department of the Post Office, and I have recently received deputations from other branches of the Service, whose representations I am, with my official advisers, now carefully considering. As regards the men under suspension, they will be re stored to duty as soon as they have given satisfactory assurances for their future good behaviour. I am correctly reported to have stated that the postmen are at liberty to attend meetings either indoors or out of doors, provided they conform to the Rules of the Service, and that one of such Rules is that they should exclude any outsider from attending such meetings. Open-air meetings scarcely seem to be the best adapted for reasonable de liberation and discussion of official questions, but those who hold them must be responsible for the observance of the Rule to which the hon. Member refers, and I think that I have a right to expect that Members of this House will not incite public servants to breaches of the Rules under which their Department is administered.
§ MR. CONYBEAREIn reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the last question, is it not the fact that postmen, as a rule, are not in the receipt of very high wages, and that it would not always be possible for them to hire a hall for the discussion of their grievances? Is that not a sufficient ground for permitting them to meet in the open air? May I also ask what measures the men ought to adopt to prevent an outsider from attending one of their open-air meetings, if the presence of a stranger is to expose them to punishment? Would not the enforcement of that Rule practically abrogate their right of meeting in the open air?
§ MR. RAIKESI am not prepared to say that the Committee might not have some difficulty in excluding some enthusiastic sympathisers. I have not said that there is a Rule against open-air meetings, although I have pointed out their disadvantages.
EARL COMPTONThe right hon. Gentleman has expressed his regret that the postmen should have allowed them selves to be misled. By whom were they misled and in what manner?
§ MR. RAIKESI am afraid that it would take a long time to answer that question. [Cries of "Go on" from the Opposition Benches.] The individual who signed the notices and made himself responsible for the statements contained in them is not a member of the Postal Service at all, but was largely connected with the organisation of the dock strike in the winter.
§ MR. CONYBEAREThe right hon. Gentleman spoke of Members of this House inciting the Post Office officials. Will he be kind enough to state on what occasion any Member of this House incited Post Office officials to any breach of the Rules of the Service? Are we to understand that if the Post Office employés invited any hon. Member to attend one of their meetings, he is precluded from accepting such an invitation for fear of exposing the men to punishment.
§ MR. RAIKESI hope the hon. Member will not deem me discourteous if I say that I have nothing to add to my former answer.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI will repeat the question upon some other day.
§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)Is it correct that two months ago, when postmen desired to be addressed at one of the meetings by Members of Parliament, they were given to understand that Members of Parliament could not attend?
§ MR. RAIKESI do not remember the occasion, but if the hon. Member wishes I will make inquiry.
§ MR. CONYBEAREIs it the fact that the postmen at the Western District Post Office have declined to do the duties of the men who were suspended for attending a Trade Union Meeting; and whether the duties have only been taken up under threats from their superior officers?
§ MR. RAIKESThere is no foundation for the statement implied in the question that the postmen at the Western District Office have declined to do the duties of the men who have been suspended, or have taken up those duties only under threats from their superior officers.
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether telegraph messenger hoys are being employed to do the duties of the postmen at the Western District Post Office who were suspended for attending a Trade Union meeting; and whether he considers that the important duties of experienced men may, with safety to the public, be entrusted to these lads?
§ MR. RAIKESThe work of four out of the seven men who have been superseded is being done by telegraph messengers, from whom the postmen's class is recruited. Any duties temporarily vacant are, as a matter of course, supplied for in this way.
§ MR. CONYBEAREIS it the fact that several thousand letters which should have been sent last night from the East Central Office to the district offices for delivery by the 7.15 p.m. dispatch were not sent off at all that night; whether the congestion of work has been overtaken; and whether it is possible to settle the difficulties between the suspended postmen and the Postal Authorities in such a way as not to endanger the proper carrying on of the postal work?
§ MR. RAIKESNo, Sir; there is no foundation whatever for any of the statements contained in these questions. I am happy to inform the hon. Member that there was neither delay of letters nor congestion of work last night. As regards difficulties, I am not aware of any.