HC Deb 03 April 1947 vol 435 cc2280-90

2.47 p.m.

Mr. Cooper-Key (Hastings)

I feel fortunate in being able to raise today the matter of the postal services, which affect every man and woman in the country. I propose to show that there is room for improvement and reason for reform in these services, to outline some proposals for that reform, and to draw attention to the advantages of it. Before doing so, perhaps I might outline some of the back-ground of the postal services. Previous to 1840, and from the days of Charles I, postal rates were based on a complicated system of charges according to mileage, and collected on delivery. It was Rowland Hill, in 1840, who substituted for that system a uniform inland prepaid postage rate. From that day there has been no change in the nature of postal rates in this country, but there has been a change in the habits of the public.

In the first place, the development of telegrams and telephones has removed from the post a great deal of urgent matter, while the increased use of the mail for circulars, printed matter and advertising matter has increased the proportion of non-urgent matter until, today, it may he safely said that rather less than 50 per cent. of the total matter in the mails can be considered to be urgent letters. The habits and requirements of the people have effected the postal services further in two ways. People like to receive their mail in the morning before going to work, and business houses like to receive their mail at the commencement of the day's work; whilst no amount of exhortation by the authorities has prevented the public from posting more than half of a daily total of 15 million letters between the hours of 4–6 in the evening. The congestion at that time is concisely expressed by a writer in the 15th February issue of "The Post" the organ of the Union of Post Office Workers. He writes: Go to any post office and read the counting meter on the stamping machine. For every 20,000 letters posted up to 5 p.m., there will be found 50,000 letters posted between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. An office that finds a couple of Morris Minors sufficient for its day mail traffic will need twice as many heavy tonners for its night mails. This is only half the story, because there is greater congestion in the early morning peak in order to get the mails on to the breakfast table. Transferred into the form of a graph, one finds two peaks in the activity of the Post Office, a peak at 6 o'clock in the morning going down to a prolonged mid-day dip or valley, and again up to a peak at 6 o'clock in the evening.

Translated into a record of industrial production, that graph would make a works manager's hair stand straight on end. Here is every sin: wastage of manpower, swollen overheads, obviously bad working conditions due to the congestion, and bottleneck in output. It would be unfair on my part to say that this trouble has not been noticed or that efforts have not been made by the authorities to correct it.

Mr. Corlett (York)

Would the hon. Gentleman explain what is meant by "wastage of manpower"?

Mr. Cooper-Key

If the hon. Member will wait, I shall come to that later on. I was saying that efforts have been made to correct that evil of the two-peak load. For example, in, the report of a subcommittee set up by the Post Office Department Whitley Council to consider the question of earlier posting before the last war, the following words occur: We fully appreciate that the main object from the staff point of view of securing early posting is the amelioration of attendances and the reduction of the amount of night work; and we fully sympathise with this objection. We feel, therefore, that in formal representations to the public an appeal on the ground that a better distribution of work over the day would enable the Post Office to give better service may be more likely to secure attention than an appeal based on personal grounds. The wording is somewhat odd, but among the signatures to that report was that of Mr. Charles Sanderson. We remember what happened after that—the exhortations of the Post Office to post during the luncheon hour or before midday. This had very little permanent effect. In fact, notices were put in the post offices at that time informing the public that the vast concentration of business within four hours between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. was expensive in material and staffing costs, and strains severely the resources of the Post Office. These exhortations had very little permanent effect and the peak loads continued.

For a number of years successive appeals were made to the hon. Gentleman's predecessors to consider a plan put forward by the Postal Reform League. The founder of this League, Mr. Edwin Wells, was the writer of many articles and books on the subject and was the organising genius behind the League. In fact, I ought in future to refer to this plan as the Wells plan; it is well known to the hon. Gentleman and other Ministers as such. From time to time that plan received a good deal of support from industrial quarters, and also, over 55 Members of the present House, three of whom now sit on the Treasury bench, signified their approval of the scheme in 1945. In spite of many approaches to the hon. Member's Department, there has been an appalling record of feeble, contradictory and prejudiced opposition from that quarter. Today, in view of the national emergency which is now overwhelming all other considerations, I appeal for consideration of this plan. I am fortified in this appeal by recollections that it took 20 years to get summer time adopted, yet today we wonder how we ever did without it. So my appeal today is not made without optimism or hope.

The suggestions I am going to make are in keeping with the Economic White Paper. They show the need for conserving manpower and for streamlining a service which, by any standards of today, must be regarded as, and can be proved to be, mid-Victorian. The plan is based on a Question I asked the hon. Gentleman 14 months ago, and I will repeat what my requests were then, and what I want now. I invite the Postmaster-General to institute penny postage on letters up to two ounces posted before one p.m. for second delivery next day, to be known as midday letters; the rates for ordinary letters posted at any time throughout the 24 hours to be 1½d. for two ounces and ½d. for each additional two ounces. Alternatively, if he cannot "go the whole hog," would he in recognition of the principle of midday letters institute 2d. postage for non-urgent letters posted before midday, leaving ordinary postage as at the present time, namely, 2½d.?

The objects of this reform are two: that postal rates should be based on two considerations, urgency and non-urgency; and the necessity for ironing out the two peaks of greatest activity and the midday valley of non-activity, with its consequent advantages. This plan is simple and, I suggest, sensible. Its advantages to the public are that they will receive a well-merited reduction in postal rates and, secondly, by discriminating between urgent and non-urgent mail, there will be a speeding-up in the delivery of urgent matter. I have just received, at 12.30, a very urgent letter which was posted yesterday at 2 p.m. and I think we might do better than that. The separation of urgent and non-urgent matter will again facilitate the establishment of further air mail services throughout these islands.

Mr. Corlett

Where did the letter the hon. Member referred to come from?

Mr. Cooper-Key

Hastings—I am sorry I did not make that clear; it was posted at 2 p.m. yesterday and arrived at 12.30 p.m. today. The advantages of levelling out the peaks will be a general increase of earlier post over wider areas and will mean later times of collection to catch the night mail.

Now for the effect upon the national finances. Any reduction of postal rates on the present system would be, according to recent pronouncements by the Chancellor, that he would have to make an increase of taxation in some other form, a principle I do not agree with but it is outside the scope of my case. Under the present suggestion an increase of volume of letters resulting from decrease of postage rates will result in increase of overheads as it would fall on the two peak periods. A reduction of postage rates would on, the present system, therefore, naturally increase the overheads of the two peak periods. This would increase the evil I am now striving to overcome. On the halfpenny reduction of mail on the present system, the reduction in the Post Office surplus will be £7,500,000, or thereabouts, plus increased overheads. Under the Wells plan, the figures show that on the twopenny midday scheme the reduction of the Post Office surplus would be £3,176,260. In other words, people who want to take advantage of the halfpenny reduction in rate would do so, and it would cost the Exchequer that lesser sum.

Flattening out those two peaks, a minimum of 10 per cent. reduction in overheads would be effected. There would be almost a complete abolition of overtime, savings in manpower, fuel and transport costs. I have figures and I can assure hon. Members that anybody looking at them will readily understand that the effect of these proposals would result in an annual saving of £2,750,000. There would also be an improvement in staff duties and in facilities made available immediately for the staff. The saving in this is estimated at £1 million. There would be an acceleration of mail, which is the formula used by the hon. Gentleman's Department, at an estimated saving of £500,000. These changes would therefore result in a profit of more than £1 million to the national economy as well as a great release of manpower at this time of emergency. We must put together the loss of revenue and the increase of national income. When we put the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster-General together in relationship to this reform, we find on balance that there is an increase in the national wealth.

The effect upon the Post Office workers would be considerable. I hope there is no argument that they work in extremely bad conditions. Efforts to increase the standard of those conditions have been made but at considerable cost. At one time 2,000 half-time workers, doing a five hour day, were replaced by 3,500 full-time men on an eight-hour day, with a consequent total loss of manpower hours of nearly 5½ million per year. Under the formula which I have suggested there would be fewer early morning and evening attendances, and fewer all night duties. Midday duties would he multiplied and the covering period of the working day made shorter, while split and long-and-short duties would be practically eliminated.

The consequent increase of business resulting from the reduction of postage charges in these very restricted times would not absorb all the men freed by that levelling out during the day of those two peaks. I therefore propose that the postal workers who are made redundant by this scheme should be reabsorbed and permitted entry into other State activities now undermanned or they should be released for more productive duties. Every encouragement must be given A qualifying examination rather than a competitive one should be the idea for men made redundant to enter other services. Many older men would be discouraged by the ordeal of a competitive examination.

I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will not turn down this scheme. The Post Office is very rich. On last year's figures, it made a profit of over £36 million, free of tax. I believe that if he studies the reform in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will find that many advantages could be obtained, not in the reduction of the Exchequer's revenue, but in the releasing of a tremendous amount of manpower and in the increase of national wealth that would accrue.

I hope that he will not refer to the slight drawback of the rural areas. That has not been overlooked. Under this particular scheme, I know that in certain rural areas there are only two collections —[An HON. MEMBER: "One."]—very well, one collection a day. Under this scheme, the Post Office will always have the ability to exclude the penny mail from the peak load of the early morning, and hold it over for delivery until 12 o'clock. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a mote in my eye, but I would point out that there are a whole forest of them in the Post Office Printed Paper Regulations whereby, by putting on an extra halfpenny, the printed paper catches the evening mail in large towns but such a surcharge is unnecessary in small towns and rural areas. In my constituency, for instance, on a letter posted for night collection, I have to put 1½d., but if I go to Bexhill, about three miles away, I get that service for nothing. Therefore, I hope that nothing will be said about rural area troubles.

I hope that the Minister will accept the 2d. midday rate with the 2½d. rate, and that the public services can be greatly improved. Working conditions in the Post Office fall far below those in industry generally today, and certainly below those for which we in this House are striving. The present system is a burden on the national economy. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to end 20 years of procrastination. If he does not feel able to accept the recommendations of the Wells plan, I would suggest that he should set up a working party independent of his Department, similar to those which his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade sets up for other industries, in order that they can make recommendations and suggestions. I do not know what sort of dirge is humming in the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, as postal reform is hammering away at the door, I would like to say "Open the door, Wilfred, open the door," and, at last, let this reform in.

3.9 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke)

As the hon. Gentleman has taken up 25 minutes of the time allotted to this Debate, he can hardly expect me to deal with it at the same length. I know that it is a very complicated and difficult subject, and that it was hardly possible to take up less time, but I cannot go into the details of it, and, indeed, I do not think that is really necessary.

Mr. Cooper Key

There is plenty of time.

Mr. Speaker

Half an hour was allowed for this Debate, and the hon. Gentleman's speech did take 25 minutes. It is really taking time from other people.

Mr. Burke

It is not necessary to go into details because they are not matters which can be debated across the Floor of the House. They are detailed matters which must be gone into by experts. The arrangements made for carrying the mail, which runs into millions of letters and packages a day from all parts of the country, is a very detailed matter, and the treatment of letters in remote villages has to have regard to transport and so on, and has to be considered in relation to letters moving north, cast, south and west.

The matter has been examined by the Post Office officials. I told the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) last year, that in conjunction with the postal changes being then made, the Wells scheme was considered. Every time the question of improved postal services is brought up, the fundamentals of the Wells scheme come forward in the minds of those who are considering the matter. The principles of this scheme are so well known that they never really fall out of the minds of those people who are considering these matters. There are two objects in regard to the postal reforms; firstly, the reduction of rates and, secondly, the posting of a considerable amount of corespondence earlier in the day to relieve the pressure in the mornings and late evenings. The first essential of any proposed sheme is that it should not interfere with the necessary processes of collection, delivery and sorting of letters, and, secondly, it should be readily understood and accepted by the general public. Lastly, it must not involve any excessive charge or sacrifice of Revenue.

In order to qualify for the lower rate of postage under the scheme, letters must be posted within certain prescribed hours. The hon. and gallant Member suggests one o'clock. I do not know whether that is in the Wells scheme, but it was difficult to know which were the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestions and which were part of the Wells scheme. The view is held that the public will post cheap letters in large numbers outside the prescribed hours. It is part of the scheme that if this is done, there will be a surcharge. That means there would have to be a collection by the Post Office of the surcharge on all letters posted outside the prescribed hours. That collection would have to be done, to a large extent, on the first delivery when the need for expedition is most obvious. The Post Office feel that this is a serious drawback to the scheme. It would cause a great deal of irritation to the public, who would vent their annoyance first on the poor postman, who would have the task of collecting the surcharge, and ultimately on the Postal Administration. There is another objection, in that letters prepaid at the cheaper rate would have to have separate treatment throughout transit. They would have to be dealt with separately in the sorting offices and at every stage. That means a duplication of fixtures in sorting offices, which is impossible at the present time because of difficulties in obtaining materials, and also because sorting offices, in far too many cases, are not large enough to provide space for these extra fixtures and fittings.

That is another very serious objection. From the point of view of impracticability with regard to the surcharge, and giving separate treatment, throughout transit, to large categories of correspondence, the Post Office have always found the scheme wanting. It is not attractive in many ways, although I am not surprised that 55 Members of this House have signed a Motion in favour of the scheme. It is attractive until the details are examined. The hon. Member asked me not to mention the difficulties of rural areas. Why not? In many rural areas, there is only one collection, and either all their letters would have to be accepted at the cheaper rate or they would be deprived of the advantages of the scheme. Many places now have only a midday collection on a Saturday. What will happen? Anybody who posts a letter after midday on a Saturday, at the higher rate, will score no advantage over letters posted at the cheap rate. There, again, is a practical difficulty in the plan. The Saturday midday collection was not so widespread when the plan was envisaged as it is now.

Then, the scheme must be understood and accepted by the public. I do not believe that, whatever the public are given by way of directions and advice, they will sort their letters out, and put them aside if they want them to go at a cheaper rate. For the last two years we have been trying to get people to put a 3d. stamp on the letters they send to the Continent. Only last week, in a letter to "The Times," a lady, writing from abroad, said how annoying it was to get letters from this country on which she had to pay a surcharge of about 15 centimes. Yet people, in their thousands still put only a 2½d. stamp on their letters every time they write to Switzerland or France. Even if the public understood the scheme they could hardly be expected to make it work. Consider the position of a man with a dozen letters, some of which he wants to go at the cheaper rate. Will he walk to the Post Office, and put one lot in and keep the others until next day? No, he will put the whole lot in together and they will all be surcharged—

Mr. Cooper-Key

No.

Mr. Burke

Yes they will, it they go in after the prescribed hour. That will lead to irritation. Therefore, from that point of view, the scheme is not practicable. The hon. Member spoke about cheap rates for printed papers and postcards. He suggested that the postcard which now goes for 2d. should go for 1½d. If the card was put in after the prescribed hour it would have to have a 2½d. stamp in order to get ordinary delivery—

Mr. Cooper-Key

But the person would get more immediate delivery.

Mr. Burke

But the card would not get there until next morning, which it does now, for 2d. It would not pay to have a 2½d. stamp scheme. Further, no scheme must involve an excessive sacrifice of revenue. It is exceedingly difficult to form an approximate estimate of the cost of this scheme. If the rates are to be 2½. ordinary and 2d. cheap rate we should lose a ½d. on all letters now posted before midday, and on those which are now posted after midday but which would be posted before midday under the new scheme. The proportion in which letters would be diverted from ordinary to cheap is purely conjectural, but it may be put at roughly 50 per cent. On that estimate, the sacrifice of revenue involved in the introduction of a 2d. rate for midday letters would be upwards of £3½ million, taking midday as noon. If the cut-off time were altered to 1 o'clock, the cost would be greatly increased. This calculation refers to letters only as distinct from postcards and printed papers. If the rates on those two classes of correspondence were also increased and they were merged in the categories of ordinary anti cheap letters, additional revenue would be derived to set against the loss on the letters. On the other hand, assuming 1d. and 1½d. letters, and on the same assumption as before, the sacrifice of revenue on existing traffic would amount to some £20 million per annum. There would obviously be a fair amount of induced traffic due to the heavy fall in rates, yielding additional revenue of some £2¼ million. Against this must be set the additional cost of handling the induced traffic, roughly computed as £2 million. The two, therefore, roughly cancel each other out.

The scheme is very attractive. Any scheme which is painted in such a rosy light as that in which the hon. Gentleman has presented it sounds attractive, but instead of being a scheme for speeding the delivery of mail it degenerates into a scheme of delivering late, which is a cardinal sin in the eyes of all good Post Office people. While the scheme may sound attractive, in practice, when it has been fully examined, it is found that it is really an impracticable scheme.

Mr. Harry Wallace (Walthamstow, East)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

The Debate is running a little over time. It was due to end at 3 o'clock.

Mr. Wallace

I hoped that the Assistant Postmaster-General would say something about improving staff attendances, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key). I should have welcomed the opportunity of saying something about split attendances and the 48-hour net week.