§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. DENMANI beg to move, in page 19, line 33, after the word "that," to insert the words:
the loss on the telegraph service did not exceed five hundred thousand pounds and.The effect of the Amendment is to make a prior condition of the starting of this fund that the Post. Office shall have reduced its loss to the figure of £500,000. I have great pleasure in moving the Amendment because it will obviously come as water to parched lips. I believe it to be the only economy Amendment to be moved on the whole of the Finance Bill. Of course, we all know the enthusiasm of Members in all parts of the House for economy. Economy has been commended by two very representative and different bodies from whose reports I would like to read short extracts. The first is the Public Accounts Committee, a body specially charged to serve the cause of economy. In the last two years they have called the attention of the House to the serious loss on the telegraph system. I need read only an extract from the last report. In the previous year the Committee had drawn attention to the operating losses on the service, which amounted to £772,000 odd, with an operating income of £4,689,000 odd, and it had increased in the year under review to £972,000, on an income of £4,178,000. Then the Committee added this: 1805Your Committee think it desirable to bring this subject again before the House, and to point out that in 1930–31 for everyhillingworth of telegraphy enjoyed by the public the State contributed a subsidy of approximately 2¼d.Another authority is the private Members' Economy Committee, a Committee which worked extremely hard on a very wide field of Government services, and a Committee that deserved the gratitude of the House. On this point they observed, in paragraph 208 of their report:With regard to the telegraph service, it is doubtful whether this country can any longer afford to run the telegraph system at a permanent lose of £800,000 a year.Here are two Committees which have drawn attention to the loss. Does any hon. Member really want to spend public money to this extent on telegraphy? There are very many subjects on which all of us are glad to spend public money, but I have never yet heard telegraphy added to the list of services of that kind. I have no possible objection to people spending their own money, but I do not want them to spend mine on telegraphy. It is really ridiculous, in an age when we are told to economise in every penny, when we are told that we cannot afford a national theatre, and are bombarded on all sides with the statement that taxes are injuring every kind of public activity, that we should continue to throw money away in encouraging people to telegraph.
§ Mr. ATTLEEWill the hon. Member say where any money is lost to the taxpayer on telegraphs?
§ Mr. DENMANThis loss on telegraphs reduces the amount that would otherwise be paid to the Exchequer. Does the hon. Member argue that the Postmaster-General can comfortably go on making a loss because it comes from nowhere?
§ Mr. ATTLEEMy point is that you have a group of businesses called the Post Office, which paid over £9,000,000 to the Exchequer last year, and the hon. Member suggests that taxes pay for the telegraphs. He might as well say that they pay for telephones and stamps and so on.
§ Mr. DENMANThe profit of the Post Office as a surplus is reduced by that amount, and the Public Accounts Committee, who are accustomed to deal with accounts, and the private Members' Economy Committee both point out—
§ 8.7 p.m.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)I do not see how it is possible for the hon. Member to connect that argument with the Amendment. The only effect of the Amendment would be to postpone the establishment of the Post Office Fund until such time as the loss on the telegraph service does not exceed £500,000. The Amendment provides nothing either to increase the efficiency of the telegraph service or to increase the charges for telegrams.
§ Mr. DENMANPerhaps I can explain the argument by the analogy of the encouragement that one gives to a donkey by holding a carrot before its nose. Perhaps it would be more logical not to allow even £500,000 of loss to be left in the telegraph accounts, and to demand that the fund should not be set up until the telegraphs are a self-supporting service. The Post Office knows that it can economise to the extent of reducing the loss to about half-a-million, but it would have great difficulty in wiping out the loss altogether. It really is extremely bad business to make a loss on one great Department of the service and to say "Oh well, we are making fine profits on the rest, and therefore it does not matter." No one expects the Post Office to make a profit on every item of its business. Obviously it cannot. But it should at least pay its way in each of its great Departments, and this Amendment will give it an extremely good excuse for doing so. It is not the Post Office's fault that it has made a loss oh the telegraphs. It is our fault. It was imposed origiNaily by the House of Commons, and it has gone on from year to year for a generation. If by passing this Amendment we choose to encourage the Post Office to reduce this loss, it will do so at once. It knows how to do it [An HON. MEMBER: "By cutting; wages?"] Not by cutting wages; without any reduction of wages whatever; by making a different proportion between-the service given and the charges made to the public. I really need not argue the point any longer. If hon. Members want economy, they will vote for the Amendment.
§ 8.10 p.m.
§ Sir K. WOODI do not think I need spend long in replying to the Amendment, because the hon. Member is the only one 1807 who is likely to support it. The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the Post Office Fund being set up until the loss on the telegraph service is reduced to £500,000. We must strenuously resist the suggestion, and I ask the Committee to vote against it. In the first place, I do not think that it is by methods of this kind that we shall obtain an improvement in the telegraph service. Because there happens to have been a deficit for some considerable time—it is steadily being reduced—that is no reason for preventing the setting up of this fund.
The hon. Gentleman no doubt has his own methods for dealing with the telegraph business. I am not clear what his proposal is, but I hope that he will send it to me in detailed form, because no one is more anxious than I am to lessen the deficit. The hon. Member has made only a very vague statement about it. Whether he wants to increase the charges or reduce them, I do not know. In any event, I ask the Committee to vote against the Amendment. It is obvious that this is not a matter that applies to telegrams in this country only. It is a state of affairs which applies to telegraph systems all over the world. When telephones are such a great competitor you naturally find a decline in telegraph traffic. But I do not take the view that we need despair, or that one should not make efforts to improve the position. But I do not think that this would be a wise way of doing it, and I should be very sorry to see the setting up of the fund postponed as the hon. Member suggested.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ 8.13 p.m.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI beg to move, in page 19, line 35, to leave out the word "eleven," and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."
This Amendment raises the very large question of the finance of the Post Office, and at what point we should draw the line and say: "This amount shall go to the Exchequer and this amount shall be left for the development of the Post Office, for the improvement of the service, or the improvement of the conditions of the staff." The Amendment is based, of course, on the proposals of the Bridgeman report. That report was very interesting on telegraphs and many other things. On this particular point, the 1808 committee took a rather rough and haphazard method of ascertaining the amount that they thought should be Landed over to the Exchequer. The amount taken in the form of profits from the Post Office has been rising steadily during past years. It has gone up from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, and to the very high point at which it now stands. That is partly due, of course, to good management, partly to increase of business, and partly to certain quite fortuitous conditions, and one of these is the low prices obtaining now.
It is a very risky thing, when you are trying to settle what should be the financial relationship between a number of great trading undertakings united in the Post Office, and in the Government, to fix the tribute at a peak time. I suggest that, if there were a rise in prices, there would be a rise in the cost of raw materials, and an automatic rise in wages, and I very much doubt whether increased business would result in as big a surplus as there is to-day. Indeed, the surplus to-day is swollen by reductions in wages, and I think that, as soon as trade improves at all, there will be a justifiable demand for higher wages. Certainly I think the Postmaster-General will agree that there are some grades whose wages he would like to see increased if he could get the consent of the Treasury.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The effect of this Amendment would merely be that, if the net surplus for the last preceding financial year exceeded £8,000,000, the Post Office Fund would be set up, but that has nothing to do with the question of the allotment of the money as between the Post Office and the Exchequer. That question arises on another Amendment.
§ Mr. ATTLEEThe effect of the Amendment would be to bring in the additional amount to the Post Office practically at once. The point is that, if it is necessary to wait until the sum of £11,000,000 is reached, the Post Office may get something next year, but it certainly will get a very great deal more if the figure is reduced. The two points are intimately connected, but at this point we have to put in the figure of £8,000,000 in order to get in our second point, which is to get 1809 down the datum line, as I would call it, to a somewhat lower standard. I do not know whether it would be convenient to take the whole point on this Amendment. The two are really bound up together. If the figure of £11,000,000 stands, then the figure of £10,750,000 in Sub-section (3) follows naturally, whereas, if the figure is reduced, in accordance with my Amendment, to £8,000,000, then the second figure will be £7,750,000, in accordance with another Amendment which we have on the Paper.
§ 8.18 p.m.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI should be rather glad of the guidance of the Minister on this point. As I read the Clause, the sum of £11,000,000 merely represents the profit which the Post Office has to make in order to enable the fund to be established at all, and that, once the fund is established, the financial relations between the Post Office Fund and the Exchequer would depend upon the later provisions of the Clause. I am not quite clear whether the alteration proposed here would have any effect whatsoever on the later provisions, assuming that the Amendment were carried, and I should be glad of the guidance of the Postmaster-General on the point.
§ Sir K. WOODI am rather inclined, Captain Bourne, to think that you are right on that point. The only suggestion that I would make, as far as your observations are concerned, is that the Post Office Fund is to be set up on the basis of £10,750,000 plus a margin of £250,000. I think it would be convenient if the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) would develop his argument on that point, and if we could dispose of his suggestion, which I understand to be that the fund should be formed much earlier and at a much lower amount.
§ Mr. DENMANI have an Amendment on the Paper which raises precisely the same point in a rather different form, and, persoNaily, I should concur in the taking of a general discussion now, if that would be convenient to the Committee.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf it is for the general convenience of the Committee to discuss the question of the 1810 financial relations between the Post Office and the Exchequer on this Amendment, I should have no objection, and it will then be for the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) to move his Amendment—in page 20, line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven." If the Committee decide that the word "ten" shall stand part of the Clause, that will stop the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—in page 20, line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "seven"—and that would really cover the next two or three Amendment oh the Paper.
§ Mr. T. SMITHWould your Ruling cover the provision regarding the Post Office Fund when it is established?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am not quite clear to which Amendment the hon. Member is now referring.
§ Mr. SMITHI am dealing with the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee)—in page 20, line 24, to leave out from the word "or" to the end of line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:
for making such augmentations in the wages of the employés of the Post Office and such additions to their amenities and improvements in their conditions of service as the Postmaster-General may, after consultation with the representatives of the staff associations, decide.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think that that Amendment would be covered. I think that what is covered at the moment would be the relations in regard to the amount of money to be allocated as between the Post Office and the Exchequer. When we have disposed of that question, the question of the uses to which the Post Office Fund could be put would arise on the later Amendment, which I will certainly select.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESDoes that mean that a general discussion will be taken on all the Amendments following the one which my hon. Friend is now moving, down to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell)?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI suggest that the discussion should, in addition to 1811 the present Amendment, cover the following Amendments on the Paper:
In page 19, line 35, to leave out the word "eleven," and to insert instead thereof the word"twelve."—[Mr. Denman.]In page 20, line 11, to leave out the word"two."—[Mr. Morgan Jones.]In line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."—[Mr. Dewman.]To leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word"seven."—[Sir S. Cripps.]In line 14, to leave out from the word "pounds," to the end of the Sub-section. —[Mr. Attlee.]In line 17, after the word "sum," to insert the words "not exceeding ten million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds." —[Mr. D. Grenfell.]Then we should start again on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks)— in page 20, line 21, to leave out the words "with the concurrence of the Treasury"—which raises a completely different point.
§ 8.22 p.m.
§ Mr. ATTLEEIn the first place, we want the Fund to be started at once, and the next point that arises is as to the level at which it should be. As the Rules of Order confine us so that we cannot really endeavour to take a very large slice away from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be out of order, I think, to discuss what is the right amount that should be paid to the Exchequer from the Post Office, but what I really want to discuss is the whole question of the basis. When I was called to order I was pointing out that the Bridgeman Report did not attempt to go into the question of finance at all. The committee laid it down that the starting point should be the average of the last three years; they did not attempt to lay down what should be the principle upon which amounts should be paid by the Post Office to the State. My contention is that it would have been more scientific to lay down a basis, to say that that was what the Post Office ought to have as a surplus —recognising that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now taking is a tax 1812 on the users of the Post Office—and then to say that the amount should be fixed year by year in the Budget, and that, if the Chancellor wanted anything more than he was entitled to on those principles, it must be taken as an ordinary tax. Everyone realises that the present is a difficult time at which to ask the Chancellor for much money, and I am inclined to congratulate the Postmaster-General on having got a hope of receiving something.
When I last spoke on this subject, I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) who seemed to think it was wrong to suggest that anything should be taken for this fund, but that it should be taken from the unemployed first of all. That was the impression that I got from his remarks. In my view it is very important, if it is desired that the Post Office revenues should grow and that a really good service should be given, that the Post Office should be relieved from the position of being a milch cow for the Exchequer. The fact is that a business like the Post Office cannot be run if there is a kind of annual general meeting of shareholders going on day by day in the House of Commons, and if there is a rather rapacious shareholder who is a great clamourer for dividends, and who is entitled to interfere in your operations all the time. I am not saying that that actually occurs in practice, but the position of having Treasury control, which it is their duty to exercise, to see that they get every possible bit of revenue, out of the Post Office and that they check expenditure which is likely to diminish revenue, has a paralysing or, at least, an inhibiting effect on the activities of the Postmaster-General.
The advantage of this is that you are going to get a certain sum. We think first of all that that sum ought to be larger. That, perhaps, will be repelled by the Treasury on the ground that they cannot afford any more. The second point in these Amendments is that we do not like the part of the Clause which says that the contribution of the Exchequer is to be £10,750,000 and thereafter such sums as Parliament may hereafter determine. I believe most inquirers into the Post Office have considered that what you want to get is a fixed contribution. I agree that you can 1813 say that at present it will be dangerous to fix it at the present high level on account of it being due very largely to low prices.
On the other hand, the Bridgeman Report recognised that it was bad for the administration of the Post Office that its profits should be liable to be taken. As far as one can see Chancellors of the Exchequer are always likely to be in difficulties. I have not been long in the House, but in 12 years I have not known a rejoicing Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have always been hanging on with great difficulty. I am very much afraid that, unless we can get a definite basis laid down, we may find this fund raided again. It may be £500,000 this year and next year £2,000,000. At the end of the three yeans it will be such sum as Parliament may determine. That means in these days what the Chancellor of the Exchequer demands, and there is a very great danger that the growth of this fund will be cut short by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in difficulties.
We move to insert this lower sum because we feel that it would be dangerous to have so high a sum as this as a permanency in the very unstable price conditions of the world to-day. On the other hand, we have not put it as low as we should have liked, because we have some respect for the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, but we feel that there is a very great deal that needs to be done. We think that putting it at this extremely-high sum is very dangerous and that allowing the basis to be changed year by year really does not do what the Bridge-man Report required to be done. In fact, it really defeats the whole principle of the Bridgeman Report, which was self contained finance, and certainly I believe we want to get the finance of the Post Office separated as far possible from that of the State. That is to say that it should pay its contribution and then it should be free to run its business with the least possible control from the Treasury. I think that a great deal of the effect of the Bridgeman Report will be lost unless the financial basis is laid down quite definitely.
The methods that I should have liked would be to fix the tribute at a much lower sum, to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer a certain sum as a definite 1814 contribution to taxation for a limited period and thereafter to hope to work down to the actual amount which in my view the Post Office should pay the State. We have to take this as it is. I am sure the Postmaster-General will be sympathetic to the Amendment, though he may not be able to accept it, and I hope the Committee will express its opinion in favour of self contained finance for the Post Office, preventing it being considered as a revenue Department. The point raised in a subsequent Amendment is that, as long as, even though indirectly, the Post Office is considered as a revenue Department, you cannot get rid of Treasury control, and that is one of the vital things in any reform of the Post Office.
§ 8.33 p.m.
§ Mr. DENMANWith the principle of much that the hon. Gentleman has said, especially in his concluding sentences, I do not think anyone in the Committee quarrels. The case I have against this particular figure is a purely financial one. It seems to me a little unfortunate that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary is present, because the arguments that I want to adduce are entirely irrelevant to the Postmaster-General. The Government proposal is simply taking a sum estimated at £1,000,000 out of the revenue—deciding now that, in the next Budget we shall have £1,000,000 that we can. spare, and proposing at this moment to allocate it in that way. The case that I wish to submit is that that is entirely premature and extremely undesirable and, indeed, not what the great mass of Members would really desire. It is premature because we do not know anything about the financial position in a year's time. We cannot foretell whether we shall have this £1,000,000 to spare. Such evidence as we have that can be translated into figures is rather discouraging. I recollect certain estimates that the Chancellor made himself. He introduced Budget changes relating to Customs and Excise. He estimated that this year they would produce some £12,000,000 less than was produced last year, and that in the following year that £12,000,000 less would become £14,000,000 less. We are faced in Customs and Excise with a drop of £2,000,000 at this time next year. Similarly the In- 1815 land Revenue changes are to reduce the income next year by about £600,000 over the income of this year.
I believe it to be a very healthy exercise for Members of this House to frame for themselves a schedule of priorities of relief and to make up their minds in what direction relief is to be given supposing there is a surplus to hand out. We who were in the House in September, 1931, remember the serious cuts and the heavy taxation which had then to be introduced and the shock it was to the House as a whole that that had to be done. We who belong to the National Government hope that within the lifetime of this Government some very considerable amelioration of those cuts and of the increase of taxation will be possible. Here for the first time we see available in advance £1,000,000 which is to be handed over to the funds of the Post Office. Is there any Member of the Committee who really thinks that this is the best way in which to treat the money.
I make no apology at all for giving an outline of a schedule of priorities. If there were £1,000,000 we could afford to spare, I would begin probably with an addition to the allowances to the children of the unemployed, not because I claim any additional humanity to that which is common to all hon. Members, but because we all recognise the danger of mainutrition among the youth of the nation. We all realise that if there is any money to spare it should go in slum clearance and things of that kind. I ask in an Amendment which I have put upon the Paper that the fund should start at £12,000,000, that is to say, the estimate of the Post Office would provide £11,750,000, and the reduced cost of telegraphs, if my Amendment could have been accepted, would have added another £200,000 to £300,000. They would have been able to start the fund, and our national finances would not have been burdened. To ask us to pledge this £1,000,000 is something to which I cannot agree.
§ 8.39 p.m.
§ Sir K. WOODI think the Committee will have some sympathy with me after hEarlng the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). It is perhaps as well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some reasons is not here. The speech has been helpful in 1816 that it illustrates some of the difficulties which arise as far as the Post Office is concerned. It very largely answers some of the contentions put forward by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) who moved the Amendment. It is true that it is a most difficult time, from the point of view of the Post Office, to come to an arrangement of this kind. One cannot imagine a worse period during which to endeavour to come to a reasonable arrangement. I do not think the hon. Member for Limehouse was fully justified in all he said. I acknowledge what he said about the final conclusion on this matter, but I suggest to the Committee that to attempt at this time to put forward a definite scheme based on a definite proposition as to how the fund should be calculated, would not be in the interests of my Department at the present time. It is not possible in the present abnormal situation to say what would be a fair and a sound bargain under normal conditions. That is really the reason why the Bridgeman Report, upon which this Clause is founded, said that in the present state of the national finances it would be impracticable to suggest any other principle than that the Exchequer should be paid out of any revenue of the Post Office a sum approximating to that which it is at present receiving.
It must be emphasised, in view of any criticism of the financial arrangements, that this is simply a three-year plan. At the end of that time the Exchequer and the Post Office will be able to review the position, and let us hope that matters will have so improved that they will be able to put forward a really settled scheme upon a scientific basis. We are not settling to-night any fixed scheme. All we are doing under abnormal conditions is to arrive at a reasonable arrangement as far as the Post Office is concerned. I would say to my hon. Friend who put his case in the opposite direction that there is something to be said from the point of view of the Exchequer in this matter which he ovErieoked. It would be of considerable benefit to the Exchequer if there were a sum available in order to bring about improvements in the Post Office. It would be of considerable assistance to trading interests if certain things could be done at the Post Office which it is not possible to do to-day. If you could improve conditions under 1817 which trade and industry are carried on, it would be of some assistance in dealing with the difficult situation with which commercial interests are faced at the present time. If you could improve facilities so as to enable business men to carry on their businesses more effectively, you would help to deal with the unemployment problem. I suggest that my hon. Friends should not press their Amendments further. They have put their case. If the Amendments were carried it would completely destroy the arrangements I have made with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no possibility of a better arrangement being made at this time, and therefore I hope that hon. Members will not take the matter further. It is obviously in the interests of the Post Office and of the Exchequer that this fair and reasonable arrangement should be confirmed, having regard to the difficult circumstances in which it has had to be made.
§ 8.44 p.m.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESI should like to congratulate the Postmaster-General upon securing a small victory over the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I should have been very glad if he had been able to push the door a little wider than he has done. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) gave us the impression that it is a very long time Since he last entertained Labour ideals. To judge from the hon. Member's speech, like every other proselyte, he has become more Catholic than the Pope. He wants to increase the margin available for the Treasury rather than to decrease it. He must know that the controversy here, in a way, is not unlike the old controversy in municipal circles. When you have a municipal concern which is making a profit it is not an unfamiliar problem for the municipal administrators as to what shall be done with the profit. They ask themselves whether the profit shall be devoted to the reduction of the local rates or whether it shall be devoted to the purpose of improving the services which have been municipalised. The second object has always seemed most desirable to us.
§ Mr. DENMANMy suggestion is not that we should increase the amount of money to be got out of the Post Office, but that we should simply take from the Post Office that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated was available.
§ Mr. JONESI had in mind the hon. Member's argument concerning priorities. He is talking of priorities a little late in the day. He is concerned about a million pounds.
§ Mr. DENMANNext year.
§ Mr. JONESYes, and he swallowed £14,000,000 a week or so ago. He is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. He comes here and sheds tears over a comparatively small sum, although the other day he was prepared to give away £14,000,000. It is a little late to begin talking about priorities in that sense. However, I have been diverted from my main argument. My point is, that this problem is not an unfamiliar one in municipal affairs, as to what shall be done with surplus profits. Here is the same problem in connection with the Post Office. We are concerned that the House shall begin to look upon the Post Office as an institution in a different way from that in which it has hitherto regarded it.
§ Viscount WOLMERHear, hear!
§ Mr. JONESThe Treasury has regarded the Post Office as an instrument which, according to the degree of its prosperity, should subsidise the national finances. I grant that the Post Office as a business ought to contribute to the national finances. We are willing that a sum should be allocated for that purpose, and we provide for it in our Amendments, but once the Post Office as a business concern has made its contribution, like other business concerns, to the National Exchequer, the Postmaster-General should be regarded as a person in charge of a Department which was quite different in character from, say, the Board of Education or some other administrative office.
§ Viscount WOLMERHear, hear!
§ Mr. JONESHe is at the head of a big business concern, running that business in the interests of the nation.
§ Viscount WOLMERHear, hear!
§ Mr. JONESThe Noble Lord does me the compliment of cheering what I say and, of course, I understand from what point of view he cheers it, but for us the proposition is different. Our proposition is, and it is a sound one, that the nation 1819 is entitled to secure full control over the development of the Post Office services, and the Postmaster-General acting, so to speak, as the general manager of the Post Office on behalf of the nation, ought not to be hampered by reason of the fact that the Treasury takes a very considerable amount from the resources at his disposal. Our attitude is this: here is the Post Office, admittedly facing difficult times and discharging its task admirably, and we ought to give the Postmaster-General elbow room to move. We do not want him to be hampered by regulations from the Treasury or from any other quarter. We want to give him a chance to be free to develop the instrument in his control, and I am sure that as a business proposition our proposal is in the interests of the Post Office as a business concern. We are acting in strict accordance with the action we take municipally and natioNaily towards any municipally controlled concern or any natioNaily controlled concern. Therefore, in spite of the most seductive appeals made to us by the Postmaster-General I am afraid that we shall have to stand by the Amendment we have moved.
§ 9.53 p.m.
§ Mr. BATEYWe have a good deal of sympathy with the Postmaster-General. Our Amendment is put forward in the interests of the Postmaster-General, and I was rather surprised that he did not face up to the Amendment. What we say in the Amendment is that to find a surplus of £11,000,000 before he gets a penny is too much. He argued that it was not, but we say that it is expecting too much that he should find £11,000,000 before he gets any money of his own. I
§ can well understand anyone in the position of the Postmaster-General wanting to havea fund, but if he has to find a surplus of £11,000,000 he will not have much money to deal with. Therefore, we have moved to substitute £8,000,000 for £11,000,000, and we ought to have the support of the Postmaster-General. That would give him a fund which would enable him to do several of the things that we think he ought to do. I want it to be a fund that will be of some use. The Post Office is entitled to pay an amount each year to the Treasury, but it ought not to be so much as is proposed for next year. Instead of the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to an arrangement as to the surplus for next year on the figure quoted, they ought to have taken the average of past years. I can recollect when the surplus of the Post Office was between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. Therefore, the surplus of £11,000,000 seems to me an extremely high figure. It is no use the Postmaster-General getting a fund unless it is going to be of some use, and I could point out several ways in which he could use the money if he had it. He could increase the wages of Post Office employés.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI hope the hon. Member will not anticipate Amendments on that subject.
§ Mr. BATEYA surplus of £11,000,000 is far too high a figure. The amount mentioned in the Amendment is quite high enough, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept it.
§ Question put, "That the word 'eleven' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 39.
1823| Division No. 208.] | AYES. | [8.52 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke | Blaker, Sir Reginald | Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel | Blindell, James | Caporn, Arthur Cecil |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Boulton, W. W. | Carver, Major William H. |
| Albery, Irving James | Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald | Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.) |
| Alexander, Sir William | Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Briant, Frank | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Clarke, Frank |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Broadbent, Colonel John | Clarry, Reginald George |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Colfox, Major William Philip |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Conant, R. J. E. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Cook, Thomas A. |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Burghley, Lord | Courtauld, Major John Sewell |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Burnett, John George | Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Butler, Richard Austen | Craven-Ellis, William |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Crooke, J. Smedley |
| Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) | Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) | Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Crossley, A. C. | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard | Kimball, Lawrence | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Robinson, John Roland |
| Davison, Sir William Henry | Law, Sir Alfred | Rosbotham, Sir Samuel |
| Dickie, John P. | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Donner, P. W. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Doran, Edward | Lewis, Oswald | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Dower, Captain A. V. G. | Liddall, Walter S. | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) |
| Drewe, Cedric | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) |
| Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey | Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Salt, Edward W. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | McCorquodale, M. S. | Scone, Lord |
| Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | McKeag, William | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | McKie, John Hamilton | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Shute, Colonel J. J. |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | McLean, Major Sir Alan | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Fox, Sir Gifford | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Maitland, Adam | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n amp; Kinc'dine,C.) |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Smithers, Waldron |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Gledhill, Gilbert | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Glossop, C. W. H | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Soper, Richard |
| Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Goff, Sir Park | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Goldie, Noel B. | Milne, Charles | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Spens, William Patrick |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) | Stevenson, James |
| Graves, Marjorie | Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Stones, James |
| Greene, William P. C. | Morrison, William Shepherd | Storey, Samuel |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) | Moss, Captain H. J. | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Grimston, R. V. | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Munro, Patrick | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Guy, J. C. Morrison | Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Hales, Harold K. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) | |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | North, Edward T. | Thompson, Luke |
| Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd) | Nunn, William | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Hammersley, Samuel S. | O'Connor, Terence James | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Harbord, Arthur | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) |
| Harris, Sir Percy | Palmer, Francis Noel | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Hartland, George A. | Pearson, William G. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) | Peat, Charles U. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Penny, Sir George | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Percy, Lord Eustace | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Perkins, Waller R. D. | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. |
| Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour. |
| Holdsworth, Herbert | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston) | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Pickering, Ernest H. | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Hornby, Frank | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Horobin, Ian M. | Pike, Cecil F. | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Horsbrugh, Florence | Potter, John | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Howard, Tom Forrest | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Womersley, Walter James |
| Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Pybus, Percy John | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.) | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Ramsden, Sir Eugene | |
| Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Rankin, Robert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Rea, Walter Russell | |
| Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Captain Sir George Bowyer and |
| Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) | Dr. Morris-Jones. |
| NOES. | ||
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Edwards, Charles | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Batey, Joseph | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Lawson, John James |
| Buchanan, George | Groves, Thomas E. | Leonard, William |
| Cape, Thomas | Grundy, Thomas W. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lunn, William |
| Cove, William G. | Hirst, George Henry | McEntee, Valentine L. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jenkins, Sir William | McGovern, John |
| Daggar, George | John, William | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Mainwaring, William Henry |
| Dobble, William | Kirkwood, David | Maxton, James |
| Nathan, Major H. L. | Tinker, John Joseph | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Parkinson, John Allen | Wedgwood, Rt Hon. Josiah | |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Williams, David (Swansea, East) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Smith, Tom (Normanton) | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) | Mr. D. Graham and Mr. C. Macdonald. |
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESI beg to move, in page 20, line 11, to leave out the word "two."
§ Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 35.
1825| Division No. 209.] | AYES. | [9.7 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | McKeag, William |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | McKie, John Hamilton |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | McLean, Major Sir Alan |
| Albery, Irving James | Falle Sir Bertram G. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) |
| Alexander, Sir William | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Maitland, Adam |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Fox, Sir Gifford | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Fraser, Captain Ian | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Ganzoni, Sir John | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Gledhill, Gilbert | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Glossop, C. W. H. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Gluckstein, Louts Halle | Milne, Charles |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Goff, Sir Park | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Goldie, Noel B. | Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) |
| Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Gower, Sir Robert | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Blindell, James | Greene, William P. C. | Morrison, William Shepherd |
| Boulton, W. W. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Moss, Captain H. J. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Grimston, R. V. | Muirhead, Major A. J. |
| Briant, Frank | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Munro, Patrick |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Guy, J. C. Morrison | Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hales, Harold K. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) | North, Edward T. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hammersley, Samuel S. | Nunn, William |
| Burghley, Lord | Hanley, Dennis A. | O'Connor, Terence James |
| Burnett, John George | Harbord, Arthur | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh |
| Butler, Richard Austen | Hartland, George A. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n) | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Pearson, William G. |
| Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Penny, Sir George |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Perkins, Walter R. D. |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Carver, Major William H. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Holdsworth, Herbert | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) | Hornby, Frank | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada |
| Clarke, Frank | Horobin, Ian M. | Pike, Cecil F. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Horsbrugh, Florence | Potter, John |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Howard, Tom Forrest | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Pybus, Percy John |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Ramsden, Sir Eugene |
| Courtauld, Major John Sewell | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Rankin, Robert |
| Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Rentoul Sir Gervals S. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Kimball, Lawrence | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Cross, R. H. | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Robinson, John Roland |
| Crossley, A. C. | Law, Sir Alfred | Rosbotham, Sir Samuel |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Davison, Sir William Henry | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Dickie, John P. | Lewis, Oswald | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) |
| Donner, P. W. | Liddall, Walter S. | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) |
| Dower, Captain A. V. G. | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Drewe, Cedric | Lockwood, Capt. J. H; (Shipley) | Salt, Edward W. |
| Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Elmley, Viscount | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Scone, Lord |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | McCorquodale, M. S. | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Shute, Colonel J. J. | Storey, Samuel | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. | Strauss, Edward A. | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. |
| Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) | Strickland, Captain W. P. | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n amp; Kinc'dine;C.) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour- |
| Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Smithers, Waldron | Sutcliffe, Harold | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Somervell, Donald Bradley | Tate, Mavis Constance | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Somerville, Annesley A, (Windsor) | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Thompson, Luke | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Soper, Richard | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles | Womersley, Walter James |
| Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. | Thorp, Linton Theodore | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Spencer, Captain Richard A. | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) | |
| Spens, William Patrick | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon | Captain Sir George Bowyer and |
| Stevenson, James | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) | Major George Davies. |
| Stones, James | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Maxton, James |
| Batey, Joseph. | Hirst, George Henry | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Buchanan, George | Jenkins, Sir William | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cove, William G. | Kirkwood, David | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Daggar, George | Leonard, William | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Dobble, William | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Edwards, Charles | Lunn, William | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McEntee, Valentine L. | |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | McGovern, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Mainwaring, William Henry |
Question, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. DENMANI beg to move, in page 20, line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."
§ 9.16 p.m.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI beg to move, in page 20, line 21, to leave out the words "with the concurrence of the Treasury."
I hope the Postmaster-General will explain to us why these words have been inserted. We hoped that with the setting up of the Post Office Fund the Postmaster-General would be free from Treasury control. If everything that is proposed in the Post Office is to come under the control of the Treasury, we shall not be very far advanced. I maintain that for any purpose of checking expenditure in the Post Office, the Treasury is not really the right body. The Treasury has been set up and framed to control the expenditure of spending departments. It looks at all expenditure as an evil It is framed to bite. The first thing that it does is to say "No." That may be all very well, at any rate from the point of view of the Majority of this House, when it comes to expenditure on education and things of that kind, but when you come to a business in which expenditure is balanced on the other side either by definite 1826 takings, or by good will, or by advances to the consumers, or one thing and another, the measure of whether that expenditure is justifiable or not cannot be made by some authority outside the business altogether, which only sees the one side, the expenditure side.
The result is, in practice, that that kind of Treasury control is not really effective in obtaining economy, because the pressure is not put on at the right place. It is put on at a number of particular points which have been put, so to speak, under the Treasury brake for purposes quite unconnected with the Post Office. What you want, and what you should have, in the Post Office is an internal finance department, which measures every scheme, which uses figures for the purpose of judging of the efficiency of the machine, and in which the financial control is applied all the time. I suggest that if you keep in these words, "with the concurrence of the Treasury," you will have the bad old system. I am not saying that broad Treasury control may not be all right, but a meticulous and parsimonious control is quite out of place when you are running a business. No business man would suggest for his firm that every piece of expenditure should be sent up, just as a piece of expenditure, and submitted to a chartered accountant in the City, a person with no actual, detailed knowledge of the business.
1827 No one could run a business on those lines, and I suggest that, if we are to have a new epoch, a fund which the Postmaster-General may use as he thinks fit for developing his business, we have either to trust the Postmaster-General or not. We shall not get the proper way of judging the Postmaster-General by results by putting him under the Treasury. When he comes before this House, tells us what he has spent, and shows what development he has carried out, and when people get the results expressed in satisfaction with the service or otherwise, that is the way to judge the Postmaster-General, but you do not control him adequately by putting him under the Treasury. I believe that anyone who has been at the Treasury will agree with me that there have been instances—I am not saying a whole lot— where Treasury control has not made for efficiency, and that if you wish to have a new system, you must recognise that running a business is different from running a spending department.
I do not want to go at great length into Treasury control, but I believe that even in the spending departments economy is most successful where they have their own finance departments and have developed a continuous and careful control. That, I think, has been done to a considerable extent in the War Office. There is a system built up there of careful financial control, which has effected great improvements. You have a very good finance department in the Post Office, and if, as I believe, that could be used fully, as any finance department would be used in a business, I think you would get far better results than by trying to maintain the control of an outside body.
§ 9.22 p.m.
§ Viscount WOLMERI quite agree with everything that the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has said about Treasury control as it has been exercised in the past in the Post Office, but, to my mind, it is inevitable that, as long as the Post Office is a Government Department, you should have Treasury control. I agree that you might perhaps do a good deal by having within the Post Office an internal finance department, such as you have in the War Office. The Post Office has such an internal finance department, but it is not developed to the same ex- 1828 tent. I am quite prepared to agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps you might get an improvement in that way, but even in the War Office you are subject to Treasury control at every turn, and that control is inevitable as long as the Post Office remains a Government Department.
That is one of the considerations which led me to the belief—and here I am afraid that I part company with my hon. Friend —that the only way to make the Post Office quite self-contained with regard to finance, the only way to treat it as it ought to be treated, as a business, was to place it outside the control of the Treasury and of Parliament altogether and to make it a public utility service. I tried to get the Bridgeman Committee to do that, but when I approached the Bridgeman Committee, I felt very much in the position of the parson who tried to persuade the farmer to go to church on Ascension Day. He said, "Come along with me; it is only half-a-mile to the church." The farmer said, "All right, I will come with you, but I will stop halfway when you get to the 'Blue Pig'" That is what Lord Bridgeman did. He stopped half-way, and if you stop halfway you are inevitably landed in some form of Treasury control. The Postmaster-General could not be entrusted to spend this fund absolutely without reference to the Treasury, because he might get into commitments which would cost the Treasury a great deal of money.
Let me take an extreme case. Supposing the Postmaster-General said, "I am going to spend this money in introducing penny postage," the result of that would be a very large deficit in his estimate next year. The proposal for which he had £1,000,000 available would be found to have cost £6,000,000 and the remaining £5,000,000 would inevitably have to come out of the Treasury. Therefore, although the instance I have taken is an absurd one, it is equally true that any use which the Postmaster-General makes of these funds might possibly land the Treasury in some amount of money. Therefore it is inevitable that the Treasury should be consulted. The hon. Member says that you must trust the Postmaster-General. If we always had this Postmaster-General I should be prepared to trust him, but Postmasters-General change so frequently, and we do not know who his successor will be. The trouble about the 1829 Postmaster-General is that by the time he gets thoroughly acquainted with his job, he is generally moved on to somewhere else. He is either promoted, like Pharaoh's chief butler or else, like Pharaoh's chief baker, something else happens to him.
Therefore, while I sympathise entirely with the hon. Gentleman in his desire to get rid of Treasury control of the Post Office, I think as long as it is a Government Department, and as long as the solvency of the Post Office is a factor in the National Budget, some form of Treasury control is inevitable, but I do hope the Postmaster-General will be able to assure the Committee to-night that he has an understanding with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Treasury control which is to be exercised in regard to this fund is not to be of the pettifogging sort to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. There was a time not so long ago when the Post Office could not buy motor cycles with a sidecar attachment without going to the Treasury. That is not the sort of control that we want for the Post Office Fund, and I hope the Postmaster-General will be able to assure us that this control will be exercised in a broad and general way, and will not take the form of the Treasury trying to do the work of the Post Office.
§ 9.29 p.m.
§ Major HILLSI find myself largely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I agree with him that a new epoch is opening in the Post Office. I might say, in passing, that a large part of the credit for that ought to be attributed to my Noble Friend who has just spoken, who started the education and upon that arose the Bridgeman Report. I think there is a middle course which, I hope, will be adopted. I would ask the Mover of the Amendment whether he cannot distinguish between financial control and business control? I do not think the Treasury is the proper body for business control. It is admirable for a spending department, but not for a money-producing department or a business department. The real question is, who is to be the predominant partner in business? I hope that will be my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, because in business he ought not to be beneath the Treasury. He ought to be 1830 in charge of the business and responsible to this House. The financial system in the War Office, alluded to by the Mover of the Amendment, is quite worth following up. There you have an accounting officer who is largely in charge of the finances of that great Department. He is responsible to the Treasury, but very largely he is trusted by the Treasury to control the finances of the Department and to keep economy in view.
I should like to see the same sort of system prevail in the Post Office. The Treasury does not interfere in the organisation or management of the Army, and yet the finances of the Army are run on an economical scale. Could not we evolve some system of that sort, with accounting officers in the Post Office, or perhaps a special accounting officer for the Post Office Fund, responsible for the economical administration of the fund, and yet have the business side of the Post Office—an immense side which we all want to see prosper—in the hands of the Postmaster-General and the civil servants under him? I believe that is the right way. I do not think we shall ever get a public utility company. I am afraid the forces against that are too strong, but we might get something enormously valuable in a business management inside the Post Office, with a trained staff under the Postmaster-General, and each part of the economical administration looked after by an accounting officer in the Post Office and with Treasury control over that. But the business side would be run by the Postmaster-General with ultimate responsibility to this House.
§ 9.34 p.m.
§ Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELI did hope that my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, and who has been a Financial Secretary, would take his argument a little further, and then I should not have had to trouble the Committee with these few remarks. I think the way this arrangement has been made cuts right to the root of the constitutional privilege and practice of this House. Here are we, the House of Commons, dealing with the control of the spending of money. I disagree with my hon. Friend opposite in his view that we should abolish the control of the Treasury. Having been in the Treasury myself, I know that the officials of the Treasury 1831 do see that money is not wasted, as far as they can,. They may be wrong and their policy short-sighted, but they certainly take care of the public money. Now we are going to part with £1,000,000 a year to the Post Office. It is a serious thing to do that even if the Postmaster-General is as able as we think he is or as honest as we hope he is. No Member of the House and no member of the Public Accounts Committee has any power to review how that money is to be spent.
§ Major HILLSOh, yes.
§ Sir A. M. SAMUELWhat the Public Accounts Committee can do is to see that the Comptroller and Auditor-General reports to us that nothing has been done illegally. He can tell us that no money has been spent out of the amount which the Postmaster-General has to disburse in any dishonest or improper way, or in any way which is not in accord with the Act; but he will not have any right or power to tell the Committee how the money has been spent or in what direction so as to give the Public Accounts Committee the opportunity to review what has been done, and, if they think proper, to report to the House of Commons.
I am not going to support the Amendment, because it would take away the last vestige of protection for the public purse which we have. We have parted with the control of the House in Clause 30, and I regret it very much. I have listened to many Debates on this subject. We discussed the other day the voting of £350,000,000 to the Exchange Equalisation Account, and I regret very much that the House of Commons has parted with control there. This House in years past and the whole country fought for the control of authority over public money, but here we are, bit by bit, parting with that control for which the country fought. In spite of the correction of my right hon. and gallant Friend, I am certain that the House of Commons as a House of Commons has parted with the control and the power of revising and examining the way this Post Office Fund is spent, and we have parted with the right of reviewing the policy of the Post Office so far as that expenditure is concerned.
§ 9.38 p.m.
§ Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONTI would not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). If he is pleading for the retention of Treasury control on the ground that it has worked in the past, I am definitely at issue with him.
§ Sir A. M. SAMUELI am prepared to put up with Treasury control because we are parting with House of Commons control, but I would rather have House of Commons control.
§ Mr. BEAUMONTThe reply of the hon. Member does not affect my argument. We have fought for the control of the House of Commons and have abandoned it to the Treasury. The net result has been that our expenditure has gone up and up. The present system of control over finance by the Treasury has not, I submit, been an adequate control over public funds. If I have to choose between the control by my right hon. Friend, in whom, unlike the hon. Baronet, I have considerable confidence, and control by Treasury officials, who have sanctioned the squandering of public money as it has been squandered in the last 11 years, I will plump for control by my right hon. Friend.
§ 9.40 p.m.
§ Sir K. WOODMay I recall to the Committee what the proposal and the Amendment before the Committee are, and make one or two general observations on the speeches which have been made, some of which, in the interests of the Treasury and the Post Office, I must correct. We are proposing to set up a Post Office Fund and we are discussing to what purposes that fund shall be devoted, and whether, when the Postmaster-General comes to a decision as to the purposes to which it shall be devoted, he shall obtain the concurrence of the Treasury. That is the issue, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) has moved the deletion of the words "with the concurrence of the Treasury." I must call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Bridgeman Committee, which made this proposal, said:
The approval of the Government of the day or, at any rate, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be required as to the specific application of the fund from time to time.1833 So my first observation is that in this matter we are carrying out the recommendation of the Bridgeman Committee. Of course, that is not conclusive. It is the opinion of three eminent men, and we cannot allow the matter to remain simply on that opinion. But it is a matter of ordinary financial prudence that the Postmaster-General of the day should in fact obtain the concurrence of the Treasury in the allocation of what might be a considerable sum of money. As my Noble Friend has reminded the Committee, obviously the Treasury or the Exchequer would be anxious to know what the Postmaster-General might propose, for this is a matter which might affect the Exchequer itself; and it is following out every reasonable financial principle that the Postmaster-General should obtain that concurrence. If I have to deal with this fund, I shall very much welcome the opportunity of going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and obtaining his concurrence to my proposals. The suggestion of the fund was only brought before the House a few days ago, but already suggestions from every quarter are coming to the Postmaster-General as to what shall be done with it. The advocates of penny post, people who want cheaper telegrams, those who want the telephone charges reduced, and those who want increased wages have approached the Postmaster-General even before the fund is in being.Therefore, I think that it may be of considerable help to the Postmaster-General to be able to consult the higher financial authority in that matter. I have no doubt that any Chancellor of the Exchequer of whatever party will be very glad to be consulted, and every Postmaster will be glad to be able to say that he has obtained the concurrence of the Chancellor in the allocation of the fund. I want to make a further observation in view of the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham, who tells us that he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury at one time. It is incorrect to say that the setting up of this fund in any way interferes with Parliamentary control or with the position of the Treasury. Parliamentary control remains as it did before the proposal to set up the fund was put forward in this Bill. It makes no difference one way or the other. For instance, the Capttal expendi- 1834 ture which the Postmaster-General is permitted to carry out is laid down by Statute, and he is bound by it. The Statute is unaffected by any proposals in this Bill. The expenditure of the Post Office will appear in the Estimates, and the Postmaster-General cannot exceed them, and if he does he will have to come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate. That applies whether there is a Post Office Fund or not. There is not the slightest foundation for any suggestion that the setting up of this fund in any way interferes with the position of Parliament under the present arrangement. I will now give way to my hon. Friend.
§ Sir A. M. SAMUELI thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy. He says this makes no difference. Will he tell us specifically how, when and where the details of the expenditure will come before the House of Commons and be under the control of the House?
§ Sir K. WOODI do not think my hon. Friend has conceived how the fund will work. In most cases the Postmaster-General of the day will not wait until the fund has, we will say, £1,000,000 or £1,500,000. He will anticipate the state of the fund. He will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the end of the year and say, "There is no doubt that there will be in this fund at the end of the year, say, well over £1,000,000. I propose to deal with the fund in one of three ways." He could deal with it by way of Capttal commitments, in which case he is bound, of course, by the Act of Parliament, and therefore the House of Commons has supreme authority there, because he is not allowed to exceed the sum authorised. On the other hand he could say, "I am going to reduce charges." That he must do with the concurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so the position there is in no way altered. Thirdly, he might say, "I will make some improvement in the services," and he is equally bound in that respect not to exceed his Estimates. If he does want to exceed his Estimates by some expenditure from the fund he has again to come before the House of Commons with a Supplementary Estimate, and to claim the approval of the House. Therefore, in all three instances there is no doubt that Parliamentary control is fully secured. I wanted to say this because I did not want anyone to go away 1835 from the Committee with the idea that there was some proposal in this Bill by which we had diminished Parliamentary control so far as this proposal is concerned.
While I am greatly in sympathy with much that has been said to-night by all who have spoken about the necessity of running the Post Office as far as possible on business lines, we ought, when asking for that, to be careful what we are asking the Postmaster-General of the day to do. Are we to say to him that he ought to treat Post Office business as the American cable companies do, giving a preference to big business? There is not a Member in the House who would support that policy. Are we going to say to the Postmaster-General of the day: "Your concern is such a business concern that you ought to devote yourself to your best customers and give no concession to people whose business with you is un-remunerative"? If we adopted that proposal we should wipe out, in the first place, a tremendous number of rural telephone subscribers up and down the country. People who demand by business management the sort of management that applies to a good many industrial concerns up and down the country should remember that the Post Office is bound to have regard to other circumstances. When it is said, also, that the Post Office ought to be divorced from Parliament is it certain that we could safely do that? The Post Office is a great national institution. It has many branches beside the telephone, telegraph and postal services. Are we going to suggest, a thing which has happened in no country in the world, that the great postal service should be handed over to some institution which would not be under the authority of Parliament? I cannot conceive that being done, apart altogether from other reasons in relation to business.
And so in connection with the Treasury control. Do not let us be hurried about the proposal to do away entirely with Treasury control. Would not the Treasury exercise a very reasonable influence on the Post Office in the discus-
§ sions on this financial policy. Could it not help a great deal in that connection? I agree entirely that day-to-day Treasury control, which in so many respects has been exercised quite unnecessarily, I think, in the past, ought to go, and I am glad to be able to take this opportunity of telling the Committee, though this is not the occasion when I can go into it in detail, that following an arrangement arrived at between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself we have been able to carry out another important reform so far as the Post Office is concerned. We have arranged a much more reasonable association between the Treasury and the Post Office than has hitherto existed. I am entirely at one with what my Noble Friend has said: the old system was the growth of years. In many respects it has not, we will say, done a great deal of harm to the Post Office, but it has meant delays and it has meant waste of labour and I am now glad to say that we have now arrived at a very fair arrangement, I think, between the Treasury and the Post Office by which the Post Office will be much more free.
§ But in attaining that measure of freedom I do not wish it to be inferred that I think that a national institution like the Post Office should be divorced from Parliament, or that it should be separated from the proper influence of the Treasury in a matter of this kind. I. hope the Committee will forgive me for going a little out of my way to make that statement to-night. I suggest to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that it will be a healthy thing for the Treasury to have a voice in any division that may be made of the Post Office Fund, and for me to obtain their concurrence, because they are vitally interested in the manner in which this money is disposed of. I think it will be of great value to any Postmaster-General of the day in deciding how he applies the surplus.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 43.
1839| Division No. 210.] | AYES. | [9.53 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke | Aske, Sir Robert William | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) |
| Albery, Irving James | Atholl, Duchess of | Barclay-Harvey, C. M. |
| Alexander, Sir William | Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Hales, Harold K. | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Pike, Cecil F. |
| Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) | Hammersley, Samuel S. | Potter, John |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Hanley, Dennis A. | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. |
| Blindell, James | Harbord, Arthur | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Boulton, w. w. | Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Ramsden, Sir Eugene |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Rankin, Robert |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Ray, Sir William |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Holdsworth, Herbert | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hornby, Frank | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Horobin, Ian M. | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Burghley, Lord | Horsbrugh, Florence | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Burnett, John George | Howard, Tom Forrest | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Butler, Richard Austen | Howitt, Dr. Altred B. | Robinson, John Roland |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.) | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Rosbotham, Sir Samuel |
| Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Iveagh, Countess of | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Carver, Major William H. | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, C.) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Salt, Edward W. |
| Clarke, Frank | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Kimball, Lawrence | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Law, Sir Alfred | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Scone, Lord |
| Cooke, Douglas | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Courtauld, Major John Sewell | Lewis, Oswald | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry | Liddall, Walter S. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Shute, Colonel J. J. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine.C.) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Smithers, Waldron |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick) | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Cross, R. H. | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Crossley, A. C. | McCorquodale, M. S. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Soper, Richard |
| Davison, sir William Henry | MeKeag, William | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McKie, John Hamilton | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Dickie, John P. | McLean, Major Sir Alan | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Donner, P. W. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Spens, William Patrick |
| Dower, Captain A. V. G. | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Stanley, Hon. O.F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Drewe, Cedric | Maitland, Adam | Stevenson, James |
| Ellis, sir R. Geoffrey | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Stones, James |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Storey, Samuel |
| Elmley, Viscount | Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Milne, Charles | Thompson, Luke |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Fox, Sir Gifford | Morrison, William Shepherd | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Moss, Captain H. J. | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Munro, Patrick | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Gibson, Charles Granville | Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph | Wallace, John (DunferMilne) |
| Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Gledhill, Gilbert | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | North, Edward T. | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. |
| Gluckstein, Louie Halle | Nunn, William | Warrender, Sir Victor A. S. |
| Goff, Sir Park | O'Connor, Terence James | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Goldie, Noel B. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour- |
| Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Cower, Sir Robert | Palmer, Francis Noel | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Greene, William P. C. | Peake, Captain Osbert | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) | Pearson, William G. | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Grimston, R. V. | Peat, Charles U. | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Penny, Sir George | Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Perkins, Walter R. D. | |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Guy, J. C. Morrison | Pickering, Ernest H. | Mr. Womersley and Major George Davies. |
| NOES. | ||
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Mainwaring, William Henry |
| Briant, Frank | Hirst, George Henry | Maxton, James |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Jenkins, Sir William | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Buchanan, George | John, William | Owen, Major Goronwy |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Kirkwood, David | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Daggar, George | Lawson, John James | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Dobble, William | Leonard, William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Edwards, Charles | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | Lunn, William | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | McEntee, Valentine L. | |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | McGovern, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham. |
§ 10.2 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKERI beg to move, in page 20, line 24, to leave out from the word "or," to the end of line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:
for making such augmentations in the wages of the employés of the Post Office and such additions to their amenities and improvements in their conditions of service as the Postmaster-General may, after consultation with the representatives of the staff associations, decide.The Clause that we propose to amend sets out the special way in which the Post Office net surplus is to be dealt with, and it deals with the establishment and the application of the Post Office Fund. In Sub-section (4) there is this provision:Subject to the following provisions of this section, the moneys in the Post Office Fund may he applied from time to time, as the Postmaster-General with the concurrence of the Treasury thinks fit, either for developing, according to estimates approved by the Treasury, the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems.We want to insert words that will bring in the employés of the Post Office. Subsection (4) deals with the mechanical side, but no mention is made of the human side. We are attempting, in this Amendment, to bring in what, from our point of view, is the most vital part of the Post Office. We think that some regard ought to be paid to the position of Post Office servants, and we want some of the surplus to be used for that purpose. Hon. Members may think that Post Office employés are doing very well indeed. When we go into a Post Office, or use the telephone, we are sometimes treated with scant courtesy by the employés, and we begin to think that they are very well off and that they have a special job which gives them the privilege of telling us off from time to time. Most hon. Members have had experience of that. Probably the employés do not 1840 mean anything by it. They may be like some of us who, in ordinary life, get rubbed up the wrong way, and they take it out of the next person who comes along, although it may be somebody who is trying to help their cause.Of the Post Office employés 23,000 receive less than 40s. per week in salary. They are full-time, adult men and women. When I think of the low wages that they get, I can well understand that they get annoyed from time to time, especially when they know that we are Members of Parliament, and they think that we are not doing our duty. So we are trying to provide not only for improving the Post Office system, but for some advantage to be given to the servants of the Post Office. This is a National Government. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am encouraged by those cheers, because they lead me to believe that hon. Members will give attention to these servants. We claim that we are the sole champions of these people. We may not be right in that claim. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I accept those cheers again. They mean that we are not the sole champions-Very well. Hon. Members will say to us "We agree with you. When a surplus is made by the Post Office some of it should be used for the dual purpose of improving the Post Office service and giving the Post Office servant a decent standard of life." When we make a profit out of a State service our first thought ought to be for the employé of that service. I am glad that I have got so much attention for my appeal, and when the Amendment goes to a Vote I hope that hon. Members opposite will support it.
§ 10.7 p.m.
§ Mr. T. SMITHI wish to support the Amendment. The object is to give power 1841 to the Postmaster-General not only to develop the Post Office system but to pay some regard to the employés in the service. There is no disguising the fact that the postal service of this country is a great institution. Perhaps it is one of the finest in the world. But at the same time there are being paid to certain classes of employés wages which are almost a scandal to the country. My hon. Friend referred to the ordinary workers. I wish to refer to the auxiliary postmen. Many Members of the House who represent county constitutencies know the difficulties and the low wages under which many of these auxiliary postmen work. There are 13,600 auxiliary postmen working an average of 26 hours a week and receiving about 25s. to 26s. for their work. I hope no one in the House will say that that is an adequate wage for the services performed. Quite recently there was a conference of Post Office workers in the Isle of Man, and the newspapers gave a good deal of publicity to some of the statements that were made. One was made by an auxiliary postman as follows:
I am an auxiliary postman earning 19s. weekly; married with three children; the Postmaster will not dismiss me, the public assistance committee will not help me, as they refuse to subsidise Post Office wages. I am destitute. Cannot anything be done?These cases could be multiplied many times over. At this time of the night I have no desire to prolong discussion, but I do want the Postmaster-General to have some regard to this class of employé. Such a wage is totally inadequate for the responsible work that these men have to do. Therefore, we say that the Post Office Fund should not be devoted merely to development purposes, but that the Postmaster-General should have some power to augment the wages of the various classes of Post Office employés.
§ 10.11 p.m.
§ Sir. K. WOODPerhaps I might say a word first on the object of this Clause, especially so far as it concerns the matters raised by the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. Sub-section (4) says that:
Subject to the following provisions of this Section, the moneys in the Post Office Fund may be applied from time to time, as the Postmaster-General with the concurrence of the Treasury thinks fit, either by developing, according to estimates approved by the 1842 Treasury, the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems, or as appropriations-in-aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office (including telegraphs and telephones):So far as the latter part is concerned, I have obtained a statement which I think will put the matter a little more plainly. If the fund is to be used to provide an appropriation-in-aid the effect will be either to avoid a deficit in the contribution to the Exchequer or to enable improvements in future to be carried out earlier than they otherwise might be, for instance an improvement in the wages of the Post Office staff concerned. If the arbitration court awarded the Post Office servant such a sum as would not otherwise be available, the fund, of course, would have to bear its proportionate part.As regards wages generally in the Post Office, and the question of a portion of the surplus being devoted to the staff, I have no desire to contravene or to comment upon the statement as to the conditions of the Post Office staff. I have to work with them and I have great admiration for them, but I have to carry out my work, as my predecessors did, under certain rules and regulations, and the first is that wages in the Post Office are governed by the same standard as applies to civil servants as a whole. The Post Office is a Government Department. and you cannot have it both ways. The staff, of course, have the advantage of being civil servants, and they have certain benefits. They have their pensions. I do not say that from the point of view of desiring to minimise their efforts, but I have to say that because many a man to-night would give anything if he could feel secure when he went home, and know that everything would be well with him for the rest of his days. We must not minimise that side of the matter. It is one of the advantages obtained from being a member for the Civil Service, and it is an advantage which is shared by the Post Office with the rest of the Civil Service.
Therefore, as my predecessor told them, and as I have told them, they are bound, when they are in the Civil Service, by the same conditions which obtain in other Government establishments, their scales of wages and conditions are determined by the different councils, and behind them, of course, stands the Industrial 1843 Court. The new financial arrangements do not preclude an increase in wages under Civil Service procedure, and if, by one method or another, they should obtain an increase, the ordinary operations of Civil Service procedure would follow, and, in certain events, it would be possible to have recourse to the fund. But I would warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are two views in the Post Office on this matter. One of them has been expressed to quite recently, and I can sympathise with it. As the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), my predecessor, will remember, Mr. O'Don-nell, who has had some influence in. Post Office affairs, said the other day, in reference to the Post Office workers' claim to be entitled to a share of the profits:
We see reports as to the size of the Post Office profit, but what has this to do with the wages of the workers? What is Po6t Office profit, and what is over-taxation? You may take the view that Post Office profit is simply over-taxation, and, if it is over-taxation, the over-taxation should go back again to the people who paid it.That is Mr. O'Donnell's view, not mine. He goes on to say:Why should the telegraph staff get lower rates of pay because their Service shows a deficit, and not a profit? Is the telegraph deficit any more true or untrue than that the Post Office surplus is a profit? To talk about surplus in relation to wages is to pursue a false train.That is the view of a member of the executive of the Postal Workers' Union, who has, or has had, some influence in Post Office affairs; and I may say that it is not a view that is peculiar to him, but is shared by a large number of Post Office workers—that it is not doing them a service to say that their wages should be in any way bound up with the question whether the Post Office makes a surplus or not, or, in other words, that they should have a fair wage whether there is a surplus or not. I am rather inclined to think that that, from their point of view, is a better argument to put forward than to say that they are entitled to a certain proportion of this surplus, because, after all, there is a good deal to be said for the view that it is a matter of over-taxation. A good many people are interested in this question; there are some 230,000 employés in the Post Office; and I do not want them to think that I am endeavouring to do anything that is in 1844 any way unfair so far as they are con-concerned. I do not want to raise a controversial point, but, when the hon. Gentleman opposite talks about being the champion of the workers, I must point out that the last reduction in Post Office workers' wages was made by the last Labour Government—
§ Mr. ATTLEEThe right hon. Gentleman is mistaken; it was made after I left the Post Office. It was not. done in my time, but in the time of the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Commissioner of Works.
§ Sir K. WOODI am afraid my hon. Friend is not correct. I am not pressing this point, I hope, unduly, but the Leader of the Opposition will correct me if I am wrong—
§ Mr. LANSBURYAbout what?
§ Sir K. WOODAbout what I am going to say. I am saying this because I should not like the Post Office workers to think that there is any attitude on the part of myself or of this Government such as has been suggested to-night. I am simply recording the fact that the last cut that was made in Post Office workers' wages was made by the last Labour Cabinet. That is a fact. I can give the date if necessary.
§ Mr. LANSBURYYou want me to confirm it?
§ Mr. ATTLEEI have had the point put to me. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that by whomever this was made it was not made while I was Postmaster-General and it never came before me.
§ Sir K. WOODI am not referring to the hon. Gentleman. He would not decide that matter as Postmaster-General, nor should I. The question of Civil Service remuneration is decided by the Cabinet as a whole, because it affects the whole of the Civil Service. I am not saying that it was the hon. Gentleman's decision, but I repeat that the last cut that was made in the salaries of the Post Office and other civil servants was made by the last Labour Government. I say that, not by way of reproach, but because statements are made which put me in a rather difficult position, having to deal with a very large staff. At any rate, I 1845 hope that, after the explanation that I have given, the Committee will realise that a reasonable course has been taken in the matter both from the point of view of the Post Office staff and the people who provide the money to pay their wages.
§ 10.22 p.m.
§ Mr. LOGANWe need not worry ourselves about what the late Government did or the opinions of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). What I am considering is what the National Government are going to do in regard to this Amendment. [Interruption.] You were Members of that Government and you have taken your share in it the same as anyone else. Take your share in the business to-night the same as other Members and listen to the Amendment. The proposal is that, when this fund is set up, certain officials who do the work should get remuneration out of the surplus. No matter what past Governments have done, is there anyone who will dispute that, where honesty is expected, you will pay wages to the workers sufficient to keep them? We have 13,607 auxiliary postmen and, no matter whose fault it is that they have not been properly remunerated, the fact remains that you are setting up a fund which can be manipulated either to give better benefits to those who use the Post Office or to the workers within the Department. I remember various cases at the Assizes at Liverpool where auxiliary postmen have been tried, and not only have they been reprimanded, but severe penalties have been inflicted upon them. The judge, in passing sentence, has remarked that they were in Government positions where their responsibility was great. They were asked to be true, loyal and honest servants at 18s., 19s. and 20s. a week. Is it to be said by the hon. Member for Gorbals or anyone else that, if there have been mistakes in the past, a National Government with so large a Majority ought not to be able to remedy them?
No matter what Government may be in power, it is the duty of the House to see that civil servants are given adequate pay. I put it to hon. and right hon. Members that it is indisputable that servants of any Department should have a right to receive proper pay when such a Department has a surplus exceeding 1846 £10,000,000 per annum. I am not concerned with the reduction of the cost of postage stamps when the men engaged on postal work are not receiving a living wage. The first call upon any hon. Member of the House of Commons, whether he is a member of the National Government or the Labour party, is to see that the servants of the Government are properly protected. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has put up a strong case. The National Government ought to be strong enough to get rid of the abuses of the past, and bring in something which is of benefit to the workers. The nation has no right to have men working in responsible positions at a rate of 18s. or 20s. a week. No adult ought to be called upon to carry on a responsible job unless he is adequately paid. I think that a fair case has been made out that if any additional money is to be spent out of a fund the worker should receive first consideration. The postal service to-day is a slave service. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people that a Civil Service should be maintained at slave rates. We ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.
§ 10.29 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI should not have risen hut for the fact that I and not the Government have been indicted by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI have perfect freedom and can speak. Hon. Members in the Labour party cannot have it all their own way. I was a trade union candidate for nine years in this House and I have been prepared to forfeit my Labour party candidature rather than my independence and that of my constituents. I have done that so as to be able to assert my rights here. Anyone with no income except his Parliamentary salary, who gives up his trade union candidature for his principles has a right to state his case. I have given up my trade union candidature, and I am the only one in this House who has done it. I do not claim virtues, but it shows that at least I have some principles to which I am prepared to hold. When one voluntarily gives up the candidature of his union, of which he is chairman, he has some reason for saying that he has 1847 principle behind him. The facts are on record and cannot he disputed that the last Government did reduce the wages of Post Office workers, and it is not sufficient for the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool to say that it does not matter what other Governments did. That would be possible if we were living in a rational world, but he must know that his party asked me to sign a document that I would vote with the party for reduced wages, and sooner than sign that document I left them.
The hon. Member says that we are not concerned with the past but with trying to get justice done for an unfortunate set of men and women who have not been properly treated; but he must be aware, every politician must be aware, that we get into this House by attacking the records of other Governments in the past. I have done it. In 1922 I tore the record of the Coalition Government to pieces. Everybody does it, and no one can really say that what we are doing now has no relation to the past. I remember when two former Members of this House, Mr. W. J. Brown and Mr. Bowen, pleaded with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Labour Government of that day not to reduce wages. I heard them plead in private not to do it, but it was done. They were not asked to resign. It was a terrible thing. There are worse conditions than those of the postmen. What about the cleaners? I have been in correspondence with cleaners in the Post Office who were working for less than 25s. a week, but they were reduced in their wages.
The Postmaster-General says that wages ought to be paid apart from the question of profit and loss. That is true. The right hon. Gentleman is an expert politician and takes advantage of opportunities. We must take the Parliamentary machine as we find it, and we know that there is a huge surplus profit at the Post Office. When you are establishing a fund it is at least open to argument that it should be partly for the benefit of men and women who are grossly underpaid; and the Postmaster-General has not answered that point. He has put up the philosophic case that wages should not be ruled by profits. If we were starting de novo it might be true to say that wages should be paid 1848 according to the needs of the men and women who are employed; but we are not doing that. We are discussing a surplus which is to be utilised for the development of the Post Office, and we say that one of the essential developments of the Service is to see that the staff is properly paid, because you do not secure a proper return for the money that is spent unless you pay properly the engine which has to carry it on; that is the men and women who are employed.
I support the Amendment. When the Raspberry Order was being promoted in this House we. said that it ought not to go through unless there was attached to it a guarantee of wages and conditions to the men and women engaged in the industry, and whoever represents working people must deal with those cases where men and women are grossly underpaid. Who does not at times feel ashamed when they read of a postman being prosecuted for pilfering and see the wage he is paid? I sometimes wonder whether the employers ought not to be in the dock rather than the poor victim of the system. There was a case in the City of Glasgow the other day of a postman who was prosecuted, and who was receiving a disgraceful wage considering the responsibilities of his daily task. This is a reasonable Amendment. Part of the surplus ought to be devoted to seeing that the servants of the Post Office, who are as important as any development, are propertly rewarded for their services. The Post Office is an efficient machine, and does its work with every credit. You have loyal service, and you should take away the one main blot which is upon it at the moment, and that is the low wages which are paid to decent men and women.
§ 10.38 p.m.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI agree largely with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and we are, of course, delighted that he is going to support the Amendment.
§ Mr. BUCHANANYou did not support me on raspberries.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSOn that question we differed from the hon. Member, and he is entitled to his opinions just as I am to mine. I think the Committee remembers the incident to which the Post- 1849 master-General referred. I think he was referring to the general reduction of Civil Service wages, in accordance with the cost-of-living bonus figure made in the second year of the Labour Government. In the first year it did not operate; it was held up. In the second year, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was already frightened by the bankers in the way which led to catastrophe later on, he refused to continue the remission which he had granted in the first year. Whether the decision was wise or foolish I do not propose to argue now. What I wish to say is in relation to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He quoted as an authority a Mr. O'Donnell with whom I am afraid I am not acquainted. No doubt he is a very high authority and he appears to have great influence over the right hon. Gentleman. I think his argument was a rather poor one if I may say so. Mr. O'Donnell's view is that these wages with which we are dealing should be higher in any case, irrespective of whether there is a surplus or not. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to agree with him on that point because he has done nothing to bring that about.
Here is the opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman can now for the first time bring pressure to bear on the Treasury to allow him to increase out of this special fund, the wages in some of these very hard cases quite apart from the general level of Civil Service wages. Auxiliary postmen are not, I understand, on the Civil Service basis at all. Theirs are particular wages paid by the Post Office, and, with regard to those, we suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might take power to grant something out of this money. I beg him seriously to think that there is Very often a psyschological effect in these matters which is important. Here we have a Clause purporting to allocate this surplus. The right hon. Gentleman I am sure is highly concerned with the welfare of the Post Office employés and desires to help them. But think of Parliament passing a Clause which intended to show the lines upon which the surplus is to be applied and omitting all mention of the possibility of applying the fund to the alleviation of these hard cases.
1850 There is also the important question of amenities, improvements in conditions of service, accommodation and all the rest of it. I am sure that in many cases the right hon. Gentleman will want to make improvements in these respects in the interests of the efficiency of the service and the comfort of the employés. He will not be able to do it unless he puts some words such as we propose into the Clause. The Clause lays down the only purposes for which the surplus may be used. If words covering those services are not included, it will be illegal to spend any of this surplus upon such services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because once you condescend, in a Clause such as this, to state purposes for which a fund may be used, you are not allowed to go outside those purposes in the expenditure of the fund without fresh authority in Parliament.
§ Mr. ISAAC FOOTSupposing it was decided by the Postmaster-General, after consultation with the regular authorities, to raise the wages of auxiliary postmen, could not that be done even if these words were not in the Clause?
§ Sir S. CRIPPSNot as I read it. The purposes for which the Postmaster-General is entitled to use the money are:
for developing, according to estimates approved by the Treasury, the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems, or as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office.That is not a question of increasing wages. The only object and the only purpose that can be effected by those latter words is to enable the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate expenditure in cases where there is likely to be a deficit. It will not entitle him to spend more money on wages for auxiliary postmen or on amenities and improvements for the Post Office employés, and unless he has authority to spend money out of this fund for those purposes, if he wants to do so, he will have to come to Parliament again in order to get the authority. He may, of course, put those purposes in his ordinary Estimates, to be covered by his ordinary expenditure, but the ordinary expenditure is not being dealt with here. This is an extraordinary fund, which is to be utilised in specific ways, with the concurrence of the Treasury. It is a special fund, set up 1851 for special purposes, and the point that we desire to bring forward is that it is this special fund which the Postmaster-General should be entitled, if he wishes, to spend in increasing the wages of people not within the Civil Service scale and for making improvements in the conditions and amenities of his employés.Unless the right hon. Gentleman puts in some words—we are not particular about the actual words—to show that he is alive to the possibility and is anxious that it should be included within his power, we believe that these powers will not cover that possibility, and that the right hon. Gentleman, with all the good will which we know he has towards his staff, will find himself prevented from spending this money on purposes which he would like because he has not got the authority from Parliament to do so. We therefore ask that the Committee should include these words, or, if the right hon. Gentleman tells us that at a later stage he will put in some other words to cover the same line of thought, we shall be content. Otherwise, we shall certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.
§ 10.48 p.m.
§ Mr. ISAAC FOOTAs far as I see it, the carrying of this Amendment will not really add to the powers of the Postmaster-General in dealing with the needs of these people. If I were a servant of the Post Office, I would very much rather take my chance of an increase in wages to come out of the ordinary working of the Post Office than make it dependent upon a fund which, at the end of the year, may not exist. This very Clause contemplates that there may not be a margin and that there may be a loss, and some provision is made in the very next paragraph for that possibility. I think that a dis-service is being done in making the claims of these people, with whom I hope I am as sympathetic as anyone who has spoken on the other side of the House, dependent on it. That is my view, but if I could be shown to be wrong, I would vote for the Amendment.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSThe point is not that wages should be dependent upon this Fund, but that in cases such as those of the auxiliary postmen, who are not on the ordinary Civil Service scale and do not go up and down with Civil Service rates, 1852 but whose wages are fixed specially by the Post Office, this fund, if they cannot get a rise from the ordinary sources, should be enabled to be used for that purpose, which otherwise it could not be.
§ Mr. ISAAC FOOTI am sorry if I did not follow that. I listened to the Postmaster-General and I would like to be assured on this point. If it is desired to increase the wages of the auxiliary postmen, is it necessary to carry this Amendment to secure those rights?
§ 10.51 p.m.
§ Sir K. WOODI have already stated that as far as the conditions of wages and service in the Post Office are concerned they remain unaffected by these provisions, with one exception, to which I will refer in a moment. The civil servants, including the auxiliary postmen, may have their wages dealt with in one or other way. They may go to the Whitley Council or Arbitration Board and get a decision or their wages may be increased by the Postmaster-General himself. In that event, it would follow that the increase would come out of the ordinary income of the Post Office. There is this additional observation to be made, that if any addition to their wages was of such a nature as to put the fixed Exchequer contribution in peril, you would then be able to go to your Post Office Fund in aid of the award made. To that extent the Post Office servants are interested in the fund but as far as the auxiliary postmen or others are concerned it is my contention that their remuneration and the fairness or otherwise of their claim should not be dependent on the surplus but should be determined by bodies like the Whitley Council and the Arbitration Tribunal which are always operating. My own personal view is—and I am anxious to do the right thing—that they would far better look in that direction in connection with their remuneration and terms than to a fund which, after all, there are a good many arguments for saying is really taxation and which on some occasions might be a big fund and on others a small one.
§ 10.53 p.m.
§ Mr. FOOTI would like to associate myself with the protest made against some of the wages paid, and I hope that one result of the Debate to-night— although I cannot support the Amend- 1853 ment—will be that public opinion will be directed to that matter. In addition to the auxiliary postmen, I would ask hon. Members to inquire in the country-districts what is being paid in the villages to the local sub-postmaster. When I was informed of that I was ashamed of the Government's arrangements—not necessarily of this Government but any Government—and what was paid to the unfortunate proprietor of a sub-post office. With every sympathy for the declaration made on the other side, I think that the interests of those for whom such warm advocacy has been made can be left with the ordinary working of the Post Office.
§ 10.54 p.m.
§ Mr. LOGANIt has been definitely stated by the Postmaster-General that this particular fund is a special fund set up, and if this injustice is not remedied by the Whitley scale he has power to remedy it out of this particular fund. That is an assertion, and why should not hon. Members vote on an Amendment such as this seeing that this fund can be used for this particular purpose?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 380; Noes, 37.
1855| Division No. 211.] | AYES. | [10.55 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke | Crooke, J. Smedley | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | Holdsworth, Herbert |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Hornby, Frank |
| Albery, Irving James | Cross, R. H. | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. |
| Alexander, Sir William | Crossley, A. C. | Horobin, Ian M. |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Howard, Tom Forrest |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Culverwell, Cyril Tom | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hume, Sir George Hopwood |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Dower, Captain A. V. G. | Iveagh, Countess of |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Drewe, Cedric | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey | Jesson, Major Thomas E. |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Elmley, Viscount | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool) | Kerr, Hamilton W. |
| Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W) | Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | Kimball, Lawrence |
| Blindell, James | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Boothby, Robert John Graham | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton |
| Bossom, A. C. | Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Law, Sir Alfred |
| Boulton, W. W. | Fox, Sir Gifford | Leech, Dr. J. W. |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Fraser, Captain Ian | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald | Gibson, Charles Granville | Liddall, Walter S. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Lindsay, Noel Ker |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Lloyd, Geoffrey |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Gledhill, Gilbert | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Glossop, C. W. H. | Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Goff, Sir Park | Lyons, Abraham Montagu |
| Browne, Captain A. C. | Goldie, Noel B. | Mabane, William |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) |
| Burghley, Lord | Gower, Sir Robert | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) |
| Burnett, John George | Graves, Marjorie | McCorquodale, M. S. |
| Butler, Richard Austen | Greene, William P. C. | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) | McKeag, William |
| Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | McKie, John Hamilton |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Gritten, W. G. Howard | McLean, Major Sir Alan |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) |
| Carver, Major William H. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Macmillan, Maurice Harold |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Hales, Harold K. | Maitland, Adam |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hammersley, Samuel S. | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hanley, Dennis A. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Harbord, Arthur | Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Cooke, Douglas | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) |
| Courtauld, Major John Sewell | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Milne, Charles |
| Craven-Ellis William | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. | Moreing, Adrian C. |
| Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) | Storey, Samuel |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Reid, William Allan (Derby) | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Morrison, William Shepherd | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Muirhead, Major A. J. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Sueter, Bear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Munro, Patrick | Robinson, John Roland | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph | Ropner, Colonel L. | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Nail, Sir Joseph | Rosbotham, Sir Samuel | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Runge, Norah Cecil | Thompson, Luke |
| Newton, Sir Douglas George C. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| North, Edward T. | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Nunn, William | Salmon, Sir Isidore | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| O'Connor, Terence James | Salt, Edward W. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) | Wallace, John (DunferMilne) |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Palmer, Francis Noel | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Peaks, Captain Osbert | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Pearson, William G. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. |
| Peat, Charles U. | Savery, Samuel Servington | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Penny, Sir George | Scone, Lord | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Perkins, Walter R. D. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour |
| Petherick, M. | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. | White, Henry Graham |
| Pickering, Ernest H. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Pike, Cecil F. | Somervell, Donald Bradley | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Potter, John | Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Procter, Major Henry Adam | Soper, Richard | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Pybus, Percy John | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. | Womersley, Walter James |
| Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Ramsden, Sir Eugene | Spencer, Captain Richard A. | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Rankin, Robert | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Ray, Sir William | Spens, William Patrick | |
| Rea, Walter Russell | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Stevenson, James | Captain Austin Hudson and Lord |
| Reid, David D. (County Down) | Stones, James | Erskine. |
| NOES. | ||
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mainwaring, William Henry |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, George Henry | Maxton, James |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Jenkins, Sir William | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Buchanan, George | John, William | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Price, Gabriel |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Kirkwood, David | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Daggar, George | Lawson, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dobble, William | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Edwards, Charles | Lunn, William | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McEntee, Valentine L. | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | McGovern, John | |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald. |
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clauses 31 (Repayment of advances made to the Road Fund,) 32 (Reduction of Stamp Duty on statements as to Capttal of companies, etc.,) 33 (Effect of non-compliance with stamp laws in case of certain bills of exchange,) 34 (Reduction of rate of interest on Death Duties,) 35 (Reduction of rate of interest on Excess Profits Duty,) 36 (Date of operation of certain tables for calculating annuities,) 37 (Exercise of powers of Board of Trade under Act,) and 38 (Short title, construction, extent and repeals) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
1856§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put and agreed to.— [Captain Margesson.]
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
-
c1856
- ADJOURNMENT. 16 words