HC Deb 26 May 1950 vol 475 cc2470-90

3.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton (Brixton)

I rise for the purpose of raising the matter of trade union recognition by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and, in the not unlimited time at my disposal, I shall try to deal with the important issues that are involved as quickly and succinctly as possible. I raise this matter not out of any hostility to the B.B.C., having enjoyed many a peaceful nap while listening to their weekend programmes, and I am not ungrateful to them for the contributions which they make to my all too infrequent moments of relaxation.

This problem has been outstanding for many years. In the sentences which I now propose to quote, the issue involved is presented in language which I am only too willing to adopt: I do not regard the present attitude of the Corporation towards staff representation as at all satisfactory. While it is stated that no inquiry is made as to whether or not an employee belongs to a trade union, it is my clear impression that trade unionism is not encouraged and that the general tendency is towards autocracy and paternalism, I consider that the staff should be given full opportunities for ventilating any grievances collectively, that the B.B.C. should definitely recognise the right of every employee to join an appropriate union and that a proper system of consultation and collective agreement should be instituted. I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will find it possible to associate himself wholeheartedly with the sentences I have quoted, because they are what the present Prime Minister said by way of reservation to the Ullswater Committee's Report in 1936. It is interesting to note that, however relevant these sentences were to the position 14 years ago, they are perhaps even more relevant and more applicable today.

It may be argued that this is going too far back. If that is so, I would enlist in further support of the point I am trying to make what was said by no less a person than the Lord President of the Council in this House on 16th July, 1946 What he said then will be within the recollection of almost every hon. Member present in the House at the moment. We were discussing the British Broadcasting Corporation's Royal Charter, and the Lord President, in what I beg leave to say was a cogent, thoughtful argument, made these remarks: The other change in the Charter of an important character that we propose to insert is a requirement, with which I think the Committee will generaly agree, as to consultation with the staff. The Lord President then went on to say: … the Government want to see the creation, within any large organisation—and this is a large and complicated organisation—whether public or private, of machinery that will assure to the humblest employee not only the settlement of his wages and service conditions by equal negotiation, with provision for arbitration in the event of disagreement, but also the feeling, which is important, that he will be given a picture of his part in the present prospective affairs of the undertaking, and that his views about the efficiency of the organisation will be considered by the management with the respect that they deserve. Only so in our view will the employee be able to make his full contribution to the successful conduct of the organisation. Only so can the management draw in full on the wide experience of the staff of all grades in their daily work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1946; Vol. 425, c. 1088–89.] I hope that with those sentiments the Assistant Postmaster-General will find it possible to identify himself today. I am not going to quote at great length what was said by other hon. Members on that occasion, but it so happens that another hon. Member, in the discussion on the same day, used these words: … this addition to the Charter will make a considerable change. The Corporation has been one of the few bodies in the country which actually could and did dictate to its employees through what organisations they should be represented."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1946; Vol. 425, c. 1115.] That hon. Member is now the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I could quote what was said by another hon. Member on that occasion, and who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I mention these things so as to allay any anxieties which my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General may feel on this subject. If he adopts the line which I am advocating this afternoon, he will find himself in the very good company of many of his distinguished colleagues.

My charge against the B.B.C. is that, in the light of what I have said and of the quotations I have given to the House, they have expressly flouted the wish of Parliament. The relevant document in this connection is, of course, the Royal Charter itself, which the House accepted. Clause 8 of which makes it quite clear that it is the duty of the B.B.C. to seek consultation with any appropriate organisation. The exact words are: It shall be the duty of the Corporation, except in so far as the Corporation is satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purposes of this sub-clause, to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to the Corporation to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between the Corporation and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the … maintenance of machinery for …"— and then sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) follow. Sub-paragraph (a) refers to the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions, and sub-paragraph (b) relates to the discussion of such matters as the safety, the health and the welfare of persons employed.

The extent to which the Government are specifically interested in this aspect of the B.B.C.'s activities is reinforced by the later provision that all such agreements or variations thereof must be transmitted to the Postmaster-General and to the Minister of Labour.

I feel that the terms of that Clause have been interpreted in the most niggardly and restrictive fashion possible. In my view, the conditions have changed considerably since the Ullswater Report of 1936. The B.B.C. have for too long been trying to shelter behind that Report. In any event, the authorities responsible for the administration of the B.B.C. have incorrectly interpreted the intentions of this particular paragraph of the Ullswater Report. Paragraph 38 makes it clear that representation may take one of two forms—external trade unions or one or more internal associations. The Report says: It is difficult to foresee any comprehensive solution on the lines of the first alternative, namely, the intervention of external trade unions. It may have been difficult to foresee a solution on those lines 14 years ago, but it is by no means so difficult to visualise a solution on those lines now.

As I have said, conditions have changed considerably since 1936 and that cogent argument proves quite conclusively that the present system, as it operates in the B.B.C., is unsatisfactory. Despite the privileges conferred upon the Staff Association of the B.B.C., this particular Staff Association has failed to win even the nominal adherence of the majority of the employees. According to the latest information I have been able to obtain, this Staff Association has recruited to its ranks less than half the Corporation staff. In other words, more than 8,000 employees out of a total of about 14,000 prefer no representation at all to representation through the Staff Association.

Whatever our views may be, it must be admitted that that represents a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, which ought not to be allowed to continue a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. What are the consequences of this unsatisfactory state of affairs? The B.B.C. is not only disregarding the will of Parliament and what I think is the intention of the Royal Charter that at present operates——

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)

I should like to correct my hon. and gallant Friend. Parliament has never expressed, in form, its will as to whether the B.B.C. should recognise trade unions or not. Opinion, has been expressed, but never a decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I think it is true to say that if Parliament expresses an opinion, it is an opinion which ought not to be lightly disregarded, even by such a powerful corporation as the British Broadcasting Corporation. I shall be quite content if this House, on this or some other occasion, expresses an opinion on this matter. By raising this matter this afternoon. I have made some contribution, perhaps, towards providing the House with an opportunity of expressing, once again, an opinion on this quite important problem. The present situation is inimical to friendly relations between members of the staff, one with the other. It is inimical to the friendly relations that ought to exist between the staff and the Corporation itself.

I recall an unhappy occasion when the Staff Association had to institute proceedings for libel against a well-known trade union, which was trying to organise some of the industrial or manual workers employed by the B.B.C. Fortunately, that action was settled out of court, but it cannot be a good thing that organisations should be at daggers drawn, one with the other, when it is possible, as experience in other organisations has shown, for both the staff union and the so-called external trade unions to work quite well together.

As a matter of fact, in the London County Council, which employs an even larger number of people than the B.B.C., I am informed there is a staff association and that there are also quite a number of other unions appropriate to the particular grades of employees. Employees join whichever union they consider to be the most suitable, and everything proceeds in a happy atmosphere. The relationships between the different unions, the employees and the employing authority, are as satisfactory as it is reasonable to expect.

It so happens that, quite by a coincidence, I picked up in the Vote Office the other day a White Paper which sets out the proposed action by His Majesty's Government on certain conventions and recommendations adopted at the 32nd session, 1949, of the International Labour Conference. One of the conventions which His Majesty's Government propose to ratify concerns the application of the principle of the right to organise and collective bargaining. The convention sets out certain principles designed to provide guarantees with the object of protecting the right to organise in trade unions and to promote the development and utilisation of the machinery of voluntary negotiation. That is the official policy of the Government in the most solemn form as contained in this I.L.O. convention which His Majesty's Government the other day, in a White Paper, signified their intention of ratifying.

In my submission, it is not only necessary to defend trade union principles but to preserve and extend them. It is nearly three years since the Trades Union Congress tried to negotiate a settlement of these matters with the B.B.C. Those negotiations have proved abortive. There are many other instances that could be quoted, but I will quote only two. One is the case of the National Union of Journalists, which has 200 members in what I believe is called the Radio Branch of the N.U.J. Every kind of obstacle has been put in the way of these men and women who are trying to carry out their craft, profession or calling or however they describe it. Every kind of obstacle has been put in the way of clarifying and establishing on a satisfactory basis the relationship between this section of the employees of the B.B.C. and the governing body. I am informed that the only way in which the Radio Branch of the N.U.J. can communicate with the B.B.C. is by getting the head office of the N.U.J. to write officially on their behalf. It strikes me as odd that the Radio Branch of the N.U.J. should not be considered fit and proper to write a letter or make representations on their own behalf.

I should like to quote, by way of another example, the situation in which the Council of Equity, the actors' organisation, find themselves. They have published with their annual report a document that they have submitted to the Beveridge Committee on the subject of trade union recognition. They complain that they cannot perform their functions unless the B.B.C. follows the normal processes of collective bargaining and behaves in the same manner as any other employer. They complain that reasonable facilities for organising and maintaining contact with their members is not afforded by the B.B.C., and that they are being frustrated in a variety of ways.

The position boils down to this. The B.B.C. is virtually saying, "Join the Staff Association or your voice will not be heard." Now, as a result of recent Questions which I have put to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, I am informed that the whole problem of negotiation between the B.B.C. and the T.U.C. has been referred to the Beveridge Committee. That, in my view, is a piece of evasive action which does not commend itself to me, because it is a matter which should have been settled long since. It is for this House to express an opinion and, indeed, to decide by what general principles these great public monopolies shall be guided. We grant them great privileges. We abstain to the utmost possible extent, by a self-denying ordinance, from any undue interference with their day-to-day administration.

I have no desire to penetrate into the dim conclave of the Governors of the B.B.C., whatever may be the duties of those important persons. I have no desire to violate the sanctuary in which the Director-General of the B.B.C. sits, in awful and majestic seclusion, deciding upon all these important matters. But what I say is that the conduct of the B.B.C., and indeed, the conduct of all these other great corporations, must conform to what has now become the generally accepted code of industrial relations.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will find it possible, although the matter is being discussed by the Beveridge Committee, to express some opinion on the matter. It is only by the free expression of opinion, from whatever quarter it may come, that we shall achieve an amicable solution to what is a most important problem.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)

I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) for having raised this matter. I am sure, too, that we shall get a sympathetic reply from the Assistant Postmaster-General, in view of his past trade union experience. But it seems to me a great shame that we always have to bring forward these matters in the House, and that the reasonable negotiations of the trade unionists themselves, through their own organisations, should not have more influence on the management of the B.B.C. Surely the management must know what is the overwhelming opinion of their staff. They must realise that if they continue to thwart and frustrate their right and justified intentions, it is bound to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction which will be an expression of bad staff management and result in inefficiency in the organisation.

Therefore, if the management are really keen to have high standards of management, which will be reflected in good staff morale and efficiency, and so on, they should take a great deal more notice of the representations rightly and properly made to them through trade union channels. It is a pity that so frequently all these matters have to be raised in the House. It is a generally accepted principle of good management that if there is anything continuously good or bad in any organisation it is always due to those at the top.

Perhaps because in some cases I have been willing to look at these matters very carefully and closely, I have had many criticisms brought to me during the last few years. That indicates to me that there is something seriously wrong with the present organisation, which is reflected in the failure to take more notice of the trade union represen- tations which have been continuously made to the management. Perhaps at this moment I ought to declare my interest in this matter. When I found that complaints were continually coming to me, naturally I thought in terms of what the solution might be and, at the same time, realised that there was need for a very much more effective democratic representation than there is now in the B.B.C.'s own organisation. As a member of the Association of Supervisory Staffs Executives and Technicians I felt that it would be of help to the B.B.C. if a branch was formed to represent to the management the opinion of the executives and technicians. I knew, of course, that many other unions were also interested, but it seemed that a certain section of the B.B.C. staff was not able to make representation through a recognised trade union channel.

Therefore, during the last few years, as chairman of that B.B.C. branch, I have been able to obtain first-hand evidence of the sort of things which are worrying the staff now. I think that the instances which I shall be able to give to the Assistant Postmaster-General this afternoon will convey to him the inadequacy of the Staff Association effectively to handle the job of looking after the staff interests, seeing that the staff are not victimised, and ensuring that there is a really happy atmosphere among the staff of the B.B.C.

As my hon. Friend has already said, the Staff Association was set up after certain representations were made to the B.B.C. in the Report of the Ullswater Committee in 1936. In that Report it was suggested that the representation could be either in the form of an internal staff association or by the trade unions. The trade union opinion of this is perhaps summed up quite effectively in the November issue of a magazine called "Labour," issued by the T.U.C. In an article entitled "Crazy Corner at the B.B.C." it is stated: The trouble began when the Ullswater Commission suggested there should be a staff association for B.B.C. employees. Haughtily, the idea was brushed aside. 'Inappropriate' was the word the Governors used; they employed too many people on too many kinds of work for such a body to be effective. It was an extraordinary thing that the Ullswater Committee put forward this recommendation as to the desirability of a staff association having taken no evidence whatever from the staff of the B.B.C. It had consulted with what might be termed the "boss" class, but failed to take into account the opinion of those who worked at lower levels inside the B.B.C.

I can quote quite a number of examples of the failure of the Staff Association. Without, for obvious reasons, disclosing the name, I will give in brief outline an example, which is not isolated, of a man who claimed redress of grievance against victimisation and prejudicial treatment. He first put his case to the Staff Association, but did not receive any satisfaction. He began his case in 1945, and that case has still not been settled. A period of five years for a man to get a case cleared seems to me to be quite appalling if we imagine the attitude of this man to his job in those five years and his feelings due to the delay, frustration, sense of insecurity and sense of suspicion which is automatically engendered by these delays, and to wondering what is happening all that time. It automatically rouses a great deal of ill-feeling because the effect of such a case applies not only to the individual. The case is known to quite a range of the staff in the Corporation. It amounts to little less than mental torture which members of the staff can go through when they realise that this is the sort of way in which staff grievances are handled.

If it is thought that that sort of expression is a little over-emphasised, perhaps I could quote what another hon. Member of this House said in a previous Parliament. I refer to the speech of the late Mr. Lees-Smith, the then Member for Keighley, in a House of Commons Debate, in 1936. He said: I have spoken of the question of staff associations because it leads to the subject on which I wish mainly to direct the attention of the House, the continual complaints we receive of terrorism, favouritism and intrigue as the means by which internal administration of the Corporation is carried on. I have had, since I spoke on the subject in the Debate nine or 10 months ago, a most unusual experience. Ever since then, if I talk to any employee of the Corporation, I am made to feel like a conspirator. I have friends in the Corporation whom I have known for years and, if I talk to them, they look round to see if they are being followed. They warn me I must not telephone to them, because the tele- phone will be tapped, and I would not telephone to a friend in the Corporation now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1936; Vol. 318, c. 2729.] I find that the same sort of situation applies today. I may have been somewhat critical of the B.B.C. in the past, and I find that if I speak to members of the staff on the telephone I have to refrain from mentioning my name to avoid the fear in their minds that the telephone will be tapped and they will be known to have spoken to me. It has had adverse effects. I had a case reported to me, not of a member of the staff, admittedly, but the same principle applies——

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

Mr. Cooper

He was admittedly not a member of the staff of the Corporation, but it shows how these evil influences can spread to outside, where an artist, because it was known he had got into communication with me, was thereafter severely penalised, and was out of a job for 17 months. Strangely enough, he used the B.B.C.'s own telephone system to speak to me at the House only recently, and that had precisely the reverse effect inasmuch as he obtained three contracts almost immediately.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

A lot of people will ring up the hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Cooper

That indicates that at least the telephone system is not above suspicion.

Again to indicate that this is no exaggeration, may I quote an earlier Debate in which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, after referring to the "dictatorship," which he considered was a term applicable to the B.B.C. organisation at that time, went on to say that it was a grave scandal, and something of which this House should immediately take notice. He was referring particularly, at that moment, to the way in which a certain person on the staff was treated, namely, R. S. Lambert, who was editor of "The Listener" from October, 1928, to 1938. I think it would be appropriate to describe this remark of the Chancellor's as more than a cryptic comment.

If I may, I should now like to give a very brief résumé of the case to which I refer, which has now been placed before the Director-General. It has always been said of staff grievances that there is a right of appeal to the Director-General. Well, if it takes five years for an appeal to become effective, I do not wonder that not many of the staff make use of this particular system. Hon. Members will quite understand that after a while a man gets very fed-up with the way he is being treated, and he probably resigns—which, of course, may be the real intention of the system. This man writes as follows in his statement of his case to the Director-General: To date, April, 1950, all attempts to clear one's name and obtain redress are inadequately met, and it does reveal how low are the administrative standards within the Engineering Division. This case all started from one very simple trouble that he met with, on the secret dossier which is kept of his employment. An adverse report was made, but he was not informed of it. The result was that his promotion was blocked, and every time he applied for a better job he was turned down. Rightly, he brought this matter to the attention of the Director-General. The information that I heard just recently—having made my representations to the Director-General because I felt the system which was being used was so ineffective—was that the papers had been returned to the man through the open system of handing them back through various members of the staff.

I believe it to be a matter of common courtesy that when a Member of this House places before the director-general of any nationalised undertaking certain matters affecting a member of his staff, the papers should be treated with due concern and great discretion, and not handed back in such a way that all the facts of the case may be known to everybody. I do not believe that Sir William Haley, himself, for example, were he in this man's position, would like to have this kind of private information, on which he was making representations to the Director-General, paraded before the rest of the staff. The same applies to Sir Norman Bottomley, who is in charge of the administration of the B.B.C.

This is not an isolated case. Other cases could be quoted, but it would obviously be inappropriate to go over that now. I suggest that this shows that the staff association is not an effective way of dealing with these matters affecting staff in the B.B.C. I believe it to be absolutely vital to have an independent outside form of representation. I know it is suggested that the Staff Association is, in fact, independent, and I believe it does function in offices away from the B.B.C.'s own offices, but it has such close association and is manifestly tied in such a way that it cannot be really independent. The system functions, in fact, by members of the managerial staff sitting in listening to the complaints, and if a complaint is put forward by a junior member of the staff to others who are senior members, they naturally feel that they incur a very grave risk of victimisation.

I should like to suggest to the Assistant Postmaster-General that he gives consideration to this matter right away. I know he may say, in his reply, that it would be appropriate to let the matter be dealt with by the Beveridge Committee. No doubt it is a matter that they should reasonably consider, but if he uses the argument that it should be left until the Beveridge Report is available and their recommendations are accepted by the B.B.C., it may be, at least, a further two years before these essential remedies are put into effect. I would ask my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General to consider this as a matter of real urgency.

What we find in many cases is that individual unions are making their own representations to the management. The Musicians' Union, and the British Actors' Equity, referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton, make their representations. This sort of piecemeal representation only tends to increase the suspicion among other trade unions that they are not being given equal facilities for making their case. It is an important matter that we should give the opportunity to all unions right away to come into negotiations in the proper, recognised manner, and in such a way that the whole atmosphere of the B.B.C. may be turned from the present close, fetid, suspicious atmosphere into something more healthy.

Would my hon. Friend consider that the more appropriate remedy at this moment would be that a democratic atmosphere should be created in the B.B.C. and also applied possibly to some if not all our other nationalised undertakings? There should be a far more democratic form of control, and if the various trade unions are going to put forward their cases they should put them forward collectively. At Margate recently the Postmaster-General, speaking to the Conference of the Post Office Workers, made the point that the enormous number of trade unions inside the Post Office made negotiations extremely difficult.

I suggest that this problem would be overcome if there were formed a National Council for Broadcasting, on which would be represented most of the interests not only of those employed within the B.B.C. but representatives of the consumers or the public, also. Then it would be an open forum, because it would certainly have to sit in public, where criticisms and suggestions for improvement in the B.B.C. could be made by members of the public, members of the various artists' federations and any other interested persons, all of whom would be assured of a hearing and of their suggestions being given reasonable consideration. Some such an open forum requires to be formed, for in that way we would get a democratic influence effectively manifesting itself throughout the whole of the B.B.C. organisation, and also in some of the other nationalised undertakings if they adopted this principle as well.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo (Reading, South)

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper) have made the case in such great detail that there is very little for me to add. I might, however, in the very short time that I have, be permitted to make three general points. The first is that the situation has changed very radically since the Ullswater Committee's Report. In the time that has elapsed since then, the whole of our national understanding of and attitude towards the relations between employers and employees have undergone a drastic change. It is, therefore, nonsensical for anybody, whether it be a public corporation or an individual, to rest the defects of the present system of approaching staff relations on something which was said by a Committee, however eminent, 15 years ago.

At the time when the Ullswater Committee examined this matter, the B.B.C. was the only great public corporation. It was both in the matter of staff relations and in many other matters pioneering a path. There was much that we did not then know and which we hoped the B.B.C. would help us to find out about the relationship between workers and employers who were publicly employed, but not directly by the Government or by a municipality. Since that time we have set up a large number—a number, anyhow—of public corporations, some of them very much larger, however we measure size, than the B.B.C. and employing many more people than the B.B.C. In the case of any of these new public corporations we have not been at all timid in telling them from this House, in the Acts of Parliament under which they were set up, what they ought to do about their relations with their employees.

As a result of that, in every one of these comparatively new public corporations, there has been set up a system of relationships between the corporations and the trade unions representing workers in the industries concerned which have in every case some most excellent features. It is no exaggeration to say that, with all the difficulties of size and the other initial difficulties that were bound to accompany great new ventures like the Electricity Authority, and the National Coal Board, some of the progress which has been made in industrial relations, in trade union negotiation and in joint consultation in those industries has been very much greater than even the most optimistic of us could possibly have hoped. Now, the B.B.C., far from pioneering a new path, is dragging its reluctant footsteps behind many other organisations whose difficulties were at least as great as its own and who are managing to overcome those difficulties very successfully.

The second of the three points I wish to make is that it seems scarcely appropriate to refer this question of the rela- tionships between the B.B.C. and its employees to the Beveridge Committee. I do not doubt that since the Postmaster-General has made such a reference the matter must technically fall within the terms of reference of that committee, but I think we should all agree that the intention behind the setting-up of that committee was that it should consider the relationship of the B.B.C. with its consumers, the listeners and the viewers. If that is so, it is not too much to say, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton said, that this reference to the Beveridge Committee can be no more than an evasive and delaying action.

On what grounds should we require an expert committee under so distinguished a chairman to consider a matter which has already been settled in all the other public corporations? On what grounds should we require that expert committee to decide whether a public corporation should behave in respect of its servants at least as well as the great majority of employers in private industry? Why should we ask such a committee to decide a question which is now taken as read in every quarter except within the B.B.C. itself? There may be employees of the B.B.C., is desirable a public service and a great propaganda organ the neutrality of which is rightly carefully guarded, but the answer is that that consideration does not apply any more to the B.B.C. than it does to direct Government service itself.

The same political and neo-political neutrality which is desirable among employees of the B.B.C., is desirable among the employees of the Government, and it has never been held to be a barrier to the organisation of trade unions in Government service. The Post Office has done as much as any other Department to maintain most excellent relations and effective joint consultation with the trade union representatives representing the workers in its employment.

The third point is that it is surely time for the B.B.C., through the Governors and the Director-General, to realise that the measure which is being urged on them from these benches today is not simply a measure of social justice but, from the point of view of expediency, is very much a measure in their own interest. At the moment the B.B.C. is behaving like a Canute trying to sweep back the Atlantic. It is behaving as many private employers did half a century ago in resisting the inevitable march of their workers towards combination in bona fide trade unions. It is just that half century behind the times. Its opposition will be swept away just as the general opposition of any industry to trade unions in its day was swept away.

Since they will have to give way in the end and they must know that they will have to give way—my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, with his great knowledge and experience of trade unions knows that they will have to give way in the end—it will obviously make for a better change-over and better relations if they give way quickly and with good grace.

I recommend those in charge of the B.B.C. to study the example of the British Overseas Airways Corporation Staff Association. In B.O.A.C. there was a staff association very similar, and with terms of reference very similar, to that of the B.B.C. Staff Association. It was an extremely worthy copy as far as it went and within its own terms of reference. However, it suffered from the inevitable defects that must be suffered by a company union, defects which as we now recognise in this country, make it impossible for such an organisation, however well run and with whatever good intentions, really to look after the interests of its members. There was a short sharp guerrilla offensive with B.O.A.C. They were much wiser than the B.B.C. They gave way quickly and gracefully, and in so doing created excellent staff relations in the Corporation. It is an example from one public corporation to another which I warmly commend to the Governors of the B.B.C., and I hope that my hon. Friend will find it possible to draw the attention of the Governors of the B.B.C. to that excellent example.

4.19 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)

When any question affecting the B.B.C. is before the House, we can always count on having a good discussion, and this afternoon's Debate has certainly been no exception. This is the third occasion within a comparatively short space of time that this question has been discussed, and I can almost see looming on the horizon Standing Order No. 20 which deals with tedious repetition. How- ever, I will endeavour to answer the points which have been raised and deal with one or two other matters, including the outstanding question of trade union recognition.

I always think that in answering any question affecting the B.B.C. it is just as well that we should make clear what are the powers of the Postmaster-General in relation to the B.B.C. Frankly, they certainly do not include conditions of service or questions whether the employees of the B.B.C. belong to a staff association or a trade union. The only powers which my right hon. Friend has with regard to the B.B.C. are, generally speaking, of a technical character. My right hon. Friend has power over the frequencies of transmission, the hours of broadcasting, the cost of licences, the collection of revenue, and interference with wireless reception, but he has no power as far as the question before us this afternoon is concerned.

This Debate has raised the general principle of the desirability of direct Government intervention in trade union negotiations. That was in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and also in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper). Now, neither the Trades Union Congress, nor industry, nor the Government view with favour an attempt in the House of Commons to deal with what are, after all, intimate negotiations between industry and the workers employed in it. Parliament has limited its action to the laying down of arbitration machinery in the case of disputes affecting certain industries, but has been reluctant to have anything to do with general interference in management.

The history of this question goes back a long time. It is largely the case that, since 1935 or even before, the B.B.C. have not recognised trade unions for the purposes of negotiation. I do not think it is true to say that they have not consulted with trade unions, because quite recently there has been consultation with the National Union of Journalists on a certain question to which reference has been made today. It has always been the fact, however, that the B.B.C. have negotiated solely with the staff association and that they have only followed and implemented the outside awards on wages and conditions as they affect members of the ordinary trade unions. Naturally this has given rise to a considerable amount of feeling in the trade union world, and, indeed, in Parliament.

I expressed the hope in 1948, when we were discussing a similar question on the B.B.C. report and accounts, that the pourparlers that were taking place between the T.U.C. and the B.B.C. at that time would be fruitful and that this outstanding problem of trade union recognition would be settled. However, negotiations went on right up to the beginning of this year and I understand that no solution was reached. As I said in 1948, I think the attitude of the B.B.C. has been based on the assumption that it is impossible to deal with a large number of trade unions, and there are bound to be a large number of trade unions in an organisation such as that. But many of our large industrial concerns, such as the I.C.I. and the socialised industries, have all found it possible to negotiate with appropriate trade unions and, let us be perfectly frank, in most cases the relationships are quite amiable. Therefore, I cannot see the difficulty in that direction.

Today we have the Beveridge Committee; the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Beveridge is going into the affairs of the B.B.C. and will consider this matter. I think that within the terms of reference—and I do not want in the short time available to read out the terms of reference of the Beveridge Committee—it will be generally agreed that there is power to deal with this question of trade union recognition in precisely the same way as the Ullswater Committee dealt with it in 1935. The Trades Union Congress and, I believe, the B.B.C. staff association, have already given evidence before the Beveridge Committee on this question. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to interfere before the Report of the Beveridge Committee on this outstanding problem. I do not see anything that precludes the T.U.C—despite the fact that the Beveridge Committee is sitting at the moment—from going ahead with negotiations with the B.B.C. on this question. If I may express a personal hope, it is that they will do so and that this contentious matter will be finally solved.

I have no quarrel with the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton. He put the case cogently and fairly in a manner with which we are thoroughly acquainted. He has quoted at some length extracts from speeches of the Lord President of the Council and of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I hasten to assure him that I do not dissociate myself from those remarks at all, any more than I do from my own comments in the Debate in 1948.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West, rather extended the scope of the discussion. He dealt with cases of the ineffectiveness of the B.B.C. in regard to its internal organisation, but that is something to which I am not called upon to reply. I was somewhat amazed by his account of the tapping of telephones and secret dossiers and I almost thought he was reading out the script for a "Dick Barton" programme. It is news to me that that sort of thing goes on. While it was entertaining to the House, it was hardly relevant to the point we are discussing. The one point he made which is of paramount importance is that when dealing with a large staff, the question of disciplinary machinery is important. As far as my right hon. Friend's Department is concerned, we can say that our disciplinary machinery works effectively and it is one of the concomitants of effective trade union recognition that out of it does come good disciplinary machinery to deal with the problems my hon. Friend indicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) gave us an account of the staff relationships of the B.O.A.C. and how they solved the problem. I think there is something to be learned from B.O.A.C. and I hope the B.B.C. will pay attention to what has been said.

Finally, I reiterate the statement with which I began. There is nothing, as I see it, to preclude the T.U.C. from going on with negotiations with the B.B.C. at present, but, as far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, it is very questionable whether he has power to interfere under the terms of the Charter and, in any case, he prefers to await the Report of the Beveridge Committee dealing with the B.B.C. in general. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton is wrong when he says that the B.B.C. have flouted the will of Parliament. That does not happen to be so. Parliament has never laid down that the B.B.C. must recognise trade unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress What it has done on many occasions is to express concern that they have not put themselves in line with most large-scale employers in this country.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Four o'Clock till Tuesday, 13th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.