EMPIRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS (Hansard, 12 February 1951)

§ Mr. Deedes (Ashford)
The object of this Adjournment debate tonight is to call attention to the most serious situation which has arisen in respect of Imperial telecommunications. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that this particular nationalised industry has come under fire in this House in the five years since State control replaced private enterprise. I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General is not going to contest the fact that the industry is, in fact, nationalised as the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General did last week. When the Bill was introduced in May, 1946, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Minister of Local Government and Planning said: This Bill nationalises Cable and Wireless, Ltd., and transfers from private to public control a great network of imperial telecommunications. That, I think, is conclusive, and that step was completed in April of this year when the Post Office made itself responsible for the assets and the staff of Cable and Wireless, Ltd.
When the then Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this Bill in 1946 he was in a somewhat whimsical mood, and he began his speech with these words: Yesterday it was coal; today it is cables. The Socialist advance, therefore, continues."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 201.] If I were whimsical tonight I would be inclined to say that yesterday it was coal, electricity, gas, meat, steel and today it is cables, but the advance from those halcyon days of 1946 has not been what the right hon. Gentleman then envisaged.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that the Opposition did not vote against the nationalisation of Cable and Wireless, Ltd.

§ Mr. Deedes
We shall come to that in a moment. The point has been reached now that sections of the Imperial Press are getting a worse service than they did in the worst days of the war, commercial 160 undertakings are losing business and contracts, operating staffs are depleted and exceedingly unhappy in their work, and London's future as a telecommunication centre is seriously imperilled. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny that there has been a very serious delay for reasons which I shall go into in a moment, and if he has read some of the letters which have passed between his Department and the New Zealand and Australian Press he will see that the whole system is threatened with breakdown.
I will deal with the Press first. There has been an inclination to say a certain amount about Test Match scores. Nobody loses more sleep than I do at the time of a Test Match, but it is a small aspect of the whole question. The Australians are filing every year about 11 million words in Press messages, of which the Test Match scores are only a very small part. A far more serious example was the late Imperial Conference of Premiers in London, when only the barest details reached the Australian public. During 27 days of December, ordinary news telegrams to Australia averaged four hours, and on the other four days the situation was judged to be so hopeless that every message was filed at urgent rates. The worst delay was 32 hours, and a good deal of the news sent as urgent reached Australia stale, including many messages from the Imperial Conference in London. Even urgent. rates were not reliable. This was two months after a letter had been sent from the Empire Press Union to Electra House referring to a reversion to conditions that all hoped had ended with the more understandable difficulties of wartime. The letter went on: No such breakdown has been suffered since war, and the delays appear to be worsening daily. That letter was written on 9th November, 1950. It might have been written today. Not only is the admirable institution of the Commonwealth flat rate of one penny per word jeopardised, although it has made a great contribution to imperial understanding, but the Australians are now looking for alternative routes.
If this fact is serious for the Press, it is very much more serious for commerce, because we are a trading nation and 161 depend very largely upon the trade we do overseas. The hon. Gentleman and the Postmaster-General may have seen a letter which was sent recently by Sir William Rook, chairman of Messrs. Czarnikov, Ltd., one of the biggest firms of sugar brokers in the City, on the subject of these delays as they affect commerce. I will quote two sentences from the letter. One is: This service has become completely unreliable and is, indeed, a menace to any firm engaged in overseas business. The other is that with which the letter concluded: It may astonish some of your managers handling these matters to know that the deterioration in the work of your company has become one of the big factors in rendering producers, merchants and shippers engaged in world trade, quite uncompetitive. There is hardly a more serious charge that could be made against a Government service in these days. Unless the Government can maintain the competitive system in this industry, there is no future for it.
Sir William Rook went on to quote 17 examples of delay suffered during December and January. I will give some of them. Full rate telegrams were taking from six to 30 hours from Bombay and Singapore instead of the normal one to two hours. One particular example was a cable from Sydney which was handed in at 17.38 hours on 12th January and was delivered here at 10.50 hours on 22nd January, having taken 10 days. This cable was constantly inquired for and, said Sir William Rook in his letter to the manager of Cable and Wireless, Ltd.: there is no doubt that, during most of the time, it was lying in your office. The point of these complaints is that customers are paying more and more for less and less. To get messages through under the old deferred rate we must send by the ordinary full rate. To get full rate results we must send "Urgent!" I suppose, in the last resort, we should either have to send by air mail or private carrier pigeon.
We are not unaware of the many great difficulties which have confronted the organisation concerned. There has been a considerable increase in traffic since 1938. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make too much of the great increase in traffic, which we do not deny, 162 and which has occurred since the war, because although in 1950 something like 650 million words went over the net, in the last year of the war, 1945, 720 million words went over, which indicates that in that year private enterprise was able to handle that traffic, and it disposes of any suggestion that private enterprise handed over an undeveloped system. The system today should be able to handle what it handled in 1945. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree.
There have been seasonal ionospheric conditions, that is, abnormal sun spot activities. That is only one factor among others in this business and too much should not be made of it. Some of the worst conditions were experienced by Press and commerce when the sun spot activity was least. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overstate that and overlook some of the more obvious and important difficulties. The cable system is unaffected by ionospheric conditions, and it still takes the bulk of the traffic in any case. There have been cable breakdowns. Why have they occurred?
The third most important reason is that the department is suffering from most serious staffing difficulties. It is very easy to make the staff into scapegoats. I believe that the trouble with the staff is that it is under-manned and overworked.

§ Mr. Hobson
The hon. Member has made a rather serious statement. Is he insinuating that my right hon. Friend or Cable and Wireless have made scapegoats of the staff because of the delay'? We ought to be clear about this.

§ Mr. Deedes
I think there is a tendency for customers who are suffering to make scapegoats of the staff, and it is very important that they should not do so because the staff is under-manned and over-worked and it is not their fault that delays occur. It is quite clear that the staff—I make no bones about it—do not like nationalisation. That is not my suggestion. I will quote from a recent newsletter produced by the Association of Scientific Workers, which says: When we were transferred to the Post Office our grievances which were already many, under nationalisation increased a hundred fold. I hope the Postmaster-General will take note of these news-letters and study the feelings of his own staff.
163 Not only money is involved. Under nationalisation these people have certainly lost money, for the highest rate one can reach after 12 years' service is £391 a year. But they have lost more. They have lost pride in service, status, and the very high standard of skill in which all concerned took a considerable pride when the industry was in private hands. There is at present a day staff of 400 in London doing 4,000 hours of overtime a week, which indicates the shortage. Even then circuits cannot be fully manned, and wastage is running well ahead of recruitment.
Since 1st April last 650 persons have been recruited and 790 have left the service. The work is simply not attracting the skill which it needs and deserves and under the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the skill has been not only downgraded but discouraged. In the last year traffic increased by 16 per cent. and the operators decreased by 10 per cent. It is undoubtedly true that conditions and terms are more profitable and attractive in other comparable undertakings. There is a school at which 500 trainees are now being trained, and it is reckoned that about 25 of them will "make the grade." At that rate, in order to make up the wastage, about 10.000 recruits would be required in the first place.
Advising on these matters, the right hon. Gentleman has the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. I understand that since the trouble was ventilated a few weeks ago the Board has been exceedingly busy sitting twice a week and has set up a sub-committee. It would have been good to see this earlier, but we are certainly glad that it is now taking place. I hope we may hear a little about what the Board is doing and what it can do. I should like to know what authority the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board has. It represents the tremendous concentration of governments concerned in imperial cables. Has it the authority to put recommendations to the Government here and to the respective Governments in the Dominions? What authority has it to pursue the recommendations which it makes? Will His Majesty's Government take up the recommendations which are made and carry them out?
I have some very brief suggestions for long-term and short-term policy. As to 164 the short-term, the right hon. Gentleman will have to adopt an enlightened policy on the subject of recruitment and conditions for his staff, for that appears to be at the root of many of our present troubles. We must have the skill and we must pay for it. I urge the Postmaster-General to go into this. In the second place, the Press are seeking an unofficial priority. I understand that that was granted unofficially in the days of private enterprise. I seek more information about that. Was that done? Does the hon. Gentleman think it was a good thing? Does he support the idea of an unofficial priority? If he does, is he prepared to institute it again? If not, could he let us know why he thinks it was or is a bad thing?
In the long term there are many more extensive proposals that have to be put into effect. There is the urgent need for relay booster stations on longer radio beam circuits, the replacement and renewal of cables. Cables are essential because they are independent of atmosphere. A great deal of what we are discussing tonight comes under the heading of defence, certainly in terms of cables. Above all, policy must be based on increasing volume.
The right hon. Gentleman has a complex problem on his hands, far more so than was appreciated in 1946. In effect he is trying to run an international public utility, which is a complicated thing. This is the only known example of internationalisation. The failure is due to some extent to the belief of this Government that once they have nationalised that industry there is no more to be done, whereas, as this industry has shown, having lain quiet for four years, there is more need for a dynamic and imaginative policy than ever before. The overall need is for a unifying system having a form of unified control over this now incredibly diffused system which has no central authority at all. With that should go a restoration of that personal service which was the hallmark of the system as run by private enterprise.
I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that there is a great deal at stake here. Failure will mean not only that we lose our place as a centre of world communications but that our communications, upon which our commerce depends, will slide into chaos. I hope the 165 hon. Gentleman realises that it is not only an empire but a world problem and that a great deal depends on it. I hope too that from henceforth these problems will be taken up as quickly and as vigorously as possible, and that the earliest possible conclusions will be reached and replacements put into effect.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)
We have had quite a long history of Empire telecommunications from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I only regret that the history was not quite correct. I wish the hon. Gentleman had read the debate on the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act when it was before the House of Commons. If he had done so, he would have been much better informed and his facts would have been correct.
Great play has been made by the Opposition—I am not blaming them, it is part of their duty—of the point that all this trouble arises from nationalisation. The fact is that in 1944, when Cable and Wireless was privately owned, there was tremendous criticism, so much so that no other person than the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) sent Lord Reith on a fact-finding mission to the Commonwealth.

§ Mr. Deedes
We were at war.

§ Mr. Hobson
Of course we were at war. The right hon. Gentleman did that because of the continual criticism being levelled against Cable and Wireless by certain Commonwealth countries. As a result, steps were taken by the post-war Parliament to deal with the problem.
What was done? First of all, in 1946, under the Act quoted by the hon. Gentleman, the Government took over all the shares of Cable and Wireless, but the operating and the executive positions were held by the same people who had held them under private enterprise. Then, in 1949, the Commonwealth Telegraphs Bill was introduced to implement the decisions arrived at as a result of consultations with the Dominions. I felt constrained to interrupt the hon. Member because it was a vital issue, and I said by way of interjection that the Opposition never opposed the Cable and Wireless Act when it was before the House, nor did they oppose the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act. The obvious reason was that they knew from 166 experience in the Coalition Government that there had been continuous criticism against Cable and Wireless when it was privately owned. For far more important reasons, I suggest—and I am not implying motives here, because I agree with the Government of that time—for the sake of Commonwealth relations and the maintenance of friendship between the Commonwealth, it was decided that action had to be taken. As a result, we have the present set-up.
Let us be quite clear about what happened under the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act. The whole of Cable and Wireless in this country was integrated into the Post Office system, and the same took place in the other Commonwealth countries. The operation of cable and wireless between the Commonwealth countries concerned is still done by Cable and Wireless.

§ Mr. R. V. Grimston (Westbury)
Nationally owned.

§ Mr. Hobson
I agree nationally owned.

§ Mr. Deedes
Under the Post Office.

§ Mr. Hobson
No. That is precisely where the hon. Gentleman is wrong and where he has the facts wrong. That is why he should have read the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. He based the, whole of his case on a false premise.
Let us come to the complaints which have been made. First of all, the hon. Gentleman's principal complaint was against the cable and wireless service.

§ Mr. Deedes
Will the hon. Gentleman agree that on 1st April, 1950, the Cable and Wireless Company's United Kingdom assets and services and operating staff were transferred to the Post Office?

§ Mr. Hobson
That is precisely what I said.

§ Mr. Deedes
No.

§ Mr. Hobson
The hon. Gentleman says "No." He has not listened to what I said. I have handled this matter so often that I am sure I am not wrong in my facts and that there was no slip of the tongue. It was because the hon. Gentleman failed to realise the fact which I have pointed out that he based his case on a wrong premise.
167 Let us turn to the gist of the complaints, which are chiefly against the Australian service. Cable and Wireless do not operate only the Australian service; they operate a world-wide network. But the complaints which have been made are about the Australian service and we have to find out the causes of the delay. The hon. Gentleman stated them, as he saw them; but there was one thing he did not do—he did not appreciate that these were real reasons which could not be overcome simply, as I shall prove in a few minutes beyond peradventure. The causes of the delay were the bad wireless conditions which obtained. There was a particularly awkward phase of the sunspot cycle, and when the messages had to be switched over to the cable network a cable broke down.
The hon. Gentleman asked me the reason. I cannot tell him the reason, but it is obvious that a submarine cable can fail in precisely the same way as an electricity cable can fail. That happened in December when not only did we have the Christmas greetings traffic and heavy commercial traffic, but we also had heavy Press traffic, including that on the Test Match. It was unfortunate that the cable broke down. These two factors combined to aggravate the delay which existed in November; but I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that my latest information is that there is now no abnormal delay on the Australian service—and that is information which I was given this evening. There is another factor; last year there was an increase of 20 per cent. in traffic.

§ Mr. Deedes
I said that.

§ Mr. Hobson
Those are the three main reasons why there has been delay. Now we turn to what is being done to rectify the position. Are we accepting the problem and doing nothing to solve it? No; at present we are expanding the existing relay stations at Colombo and Barbados and, when that work is completed, more circuits will be provided. It therefore comes to a question of what can be done about cables. The Commonwealth Telecommunications Board—and I think I have the name right: they have changed their name two or three times in the last five years—have agreed that the disused North Atlantic cable should 168 be reconditioned and work is proceeding on that.
It is a big task; a long-term solution; but let us remember, as it is very important, that Cable and Wireless today take 99 per cent. of the total submarine cable manufactured in this country. Of course, that cable is being used and we must not forget that during the war there was a great back-log of maintenance work which has to be done. Cables which had faulted or had been cut by enemy action had to be repaired. Therefore, the question of a new cable to carry the traffic is a long-term question.
The main method of providing the service is by wireless beam and the use of relay wireless stations, plus the cable. Under normal conditions it is true to say that the beam wireless is sufficient for carrying the traffic. It is when we get the difficult atmospheric conditions in the sunspot cycle that we get these difficulties. We must not forget that the cables which are used to a large extent carry the New Zealand and also the Canadian traffic. The hon. Member made great play with the suggestion that the whole of this trouble is due to nationalisation.

§ Mr. Deedes
No.

§ Mr. Hobson
I think he did try to insinuate that.

§ Mr. Deedes
I dealt with the question of staff, which was the basic point.

§ Mr. Hobson
On the question of staff, he said that it was all due to nationalisation. It is not; and those same conditions would have applied had Cable and Wireless remained the property of Cable and Wireless, Limited. There is a shortage of staff, but this is not the only industry in which there is a shortage of staff. It is not true that there has been a general worsening of conditions because Cable and Wireless in London has been integrated into the Post Office. The hon. Member must realise that these people do not act individually when they have grievances. They are in organised trade unions.

Mr. Charles Ian On-Ewing (Hendon, North)
Recognised?

§ Mr. Hobson
All of them recognised—

Mr. Orr-Ewing
E.O.(T.)A.?

§ Mr. Hobson
They were recognised a year ago. If the hon. Member knew anything about the trade union movement he would not be so foolish as to intervene.

Mr. Orr-Ewing
May I produce my card?

§ Mr. Hobson
These trade unions are recognised and if there are difficulties it is up to these members of the staff, through their appropriate trade unions, to bring them to the notice of the Post Office, and I am sure they do so.

§ Mr. Deedes
They have been trying to do that for months.

§ Mr. Hobson
That is not the fault of the Post Office. It so happens that there is more than one union.

§ Mr. Deedes
The fault of the Postmaster-General.

§ Mr. Hobson
No, not of the Postmaster-General. As far as one trade union is concerned, an agreement has been entered into with the Union of Post Office Workers; I refer to what is colloquially known as U.S.D.A.W. and, as a result, the U.P.W. are looking after the interests of their members. Negotiations are taking place between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Association of Scientific Workers.
The basic point I make is that it is no good saying that conditions have worsened since integration into the Post Office. There has been no worsening of conditions and if members of the staff want to improve those conditions, they, can use the ordinary trade union machinery to bring their case before the appropriate people.

§ Mr. Bishop (Harrow, Central)
rose—

§ Mr. Hobson
No, I cannot give way again. At present there is an arbitration award outstanding which is to be heard on 5th March. For a party which has had no concern for the workers in the past to come forward now as the only friend of the trade unions is ludicrous. I am sure they have no more succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of the staff at Electra House than they have anywhere else in the country. The hon. Member referred to the Press. The existing arrangements for the Press are precisely those which have been in operation for many years.

§ Mr. Deedes
They are not.

§ Mr. Hobson
I am assured they are. We are prevented under the International Telegraph Regulations from giving the Press priority, but they do get certain privileges. I will not refer to the fact that they get their messages considerably cheaper than the commercial interests—but we will forget that. We want the Press traffic and the Press traffic want to use Cable and Wireless, and they have sufficient savoir faire among themselves in operating it, because they are precisely the same people as before, and our arrangements with the Press are very good at the moment.