HC Deb 25 June 1952 vol 502 cc2242-6
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans)

With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the decision of the Government on the report of the Post Office (Departmental Classes) Recognition Committee.

My noble Friend has carefully considered the Report and is very grateful to Lord Terrington and the members of the Committee for their detailed examination of the problems set before them and for the able way in which they have presented all the complicated factors giving rise to these problems. Having carefully followed their arguments, however, and the comments furnished by the staff sides of the Post Office Whitley Councils and by interested staff associations, he is not willing to impose the recommendations of the Report.

As Minister in charge of a Government Department, my noble Friend is most reluctant to become involved in questions on how unions should be organised—indeed he sees real objections to this in principle and serious dangers in practice. It would indeed not be surprising if the trade union movement itself, on mature reflection, came to feel serious misgivings on these points. From the point of view of the Post Office staff as a whole and of the public and trade unions generally, it is most desirable that a dispute of this sort should be settled by the staff themselves and not put to the Minister for decision.

It is not, therefore, proposed to form a final view on the matter in present circumstances. We are convinced that yet further effort should first be made by the staff themselves to reach a settlement, whether on the lines recommended by the Terrington Committee or other- wise, before we are called upon to consider the matter further. Accordingly, my noble Friend intends to suspend consideration until the early part of next year, in order to give the parties concerned the fullest possible opportunity to settle their own differences. Each have a responsibility not only to their members but to the public service generally, and I would hope that the respective national executive committees would get together with the firm determination to reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement.

It will, of course, be appreciated that if this matter remains unresolved, my noble Friend would need to consider very carefully in the light of all the relevant factors where the public interest lies, but he should by then have the advantage of knowing the outcome of any further discussions that will have taken place between the organisations.

There is one staff association which is in a quite different position from any other, and which my noble Friend proposes to recognise forthwith. This is the Telephone Sales Supervising Officers' Association, which claims to have in membership over 90 per cent. of the staff concerned. No other organisation is recognised or claims recognition for these grades, and the alternative to the recognition of this Association would therefore be to leave them without any recognised representation whatsoever, which would be quite unjustifiable.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I should like to join the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend in thanking the Terrington Committee for the excellent job that they did with a very difficult question. Equally, I want to say nothing today which would embitter the atmosphere or prevent a sensible settlement of the differences that are involved. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will follow that example. This dispute has been hanging about too long to be played with as a matter of politics.

I should like to put three or four questions to the hon. Gentleman, because his statement was a little imprecise. First, what are the recommendations to which he referred which it is not proposed to impose? The Report does not suggest that any of the conclusions should be imposed upon any of the unions. Secondly, I take it that, at least until next year, his noble Friend is accepting the recommendation to withhold recognition of all the unions which are in dispute, with the exception of the one about which there is hardly any dispute.

Thirdly, when his noble Friend considers the matter next year, what will be the relevant factors in that consideration? Does he intend to reconsider the question of recognition, which, apparently, he now accepts? Finally, will his noble Friend endeavour to carry on with the parties concerned the negotiations which I started, and which would have come to a successful fruition but for political interference?

Mr. Gammans

I should like, first, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the general attitude he has taken towards the Report and to the statement, and to say, on behalf of my noble Friend, that we shall welcome the assistance that anybody can give to solve this thorny question on amicable lines.

With regard to the recommendations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I do not want to go over them in detail. What I meant by my statement was that my noble Friend at present is not prepared to implement any of the new suggestions made by the Terrington Committee and so to prejudge the issue. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether recognition will be withheld of existing claims, except the one that he specified. The answer to that is, "Yes."

In reply to his question about the relevant factors that my noble Friend will take into account if finally he is called upon to make a decision, one of the factors that my noble Friend will certainly have to take into account is the willingness shown by both sides to try to reach some sort of compromise. I forget the right hon. Gentleman's next question.

Mr. Ness Edwards

It was whether the question of recognition would come up for reconsideration next year.

Mr. Gammans

That is so.

Mr. McCorquodale

While thanking the Minister for his statement, may I ask whether he is aware that Members in all parts of the House will echo the hope that the unions concerned in this dispute will, in the six months allowed them, come to some friendly arrangement among themselves. If deadlock persists after the end of the year, however, will the Government be prepared to come to some conclusion so as finally to heal this running sore? I hope that the Government will take into active consideration at that time the question of which unions have made genuine efforts to arrive at a settlement.

Mr. Gammans

I thought I had dealt with those points in my reply to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).

Mr. W. R. Williams

I should like to ask the Minister two or three questions. First, is he aware that workers in the Post Office welcomed the decision of his predecessor to set up an independent committee to try to find a reconciliation of difficulties amongst Post Office staff? Secondly, is he aware that the recommendations of the Terrington Committee received almost full approval from most of the responsible leaders in the Civil Service unions, who formed the view that the implementation of the recommendations would bring stability and harmony into the Post Office and would enable the staff to continue with good will and co-operation, to the advantage of the administration?

Thirdly, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to appeal to his noble Friend not to make more difficulties and not to make the situation more difficult than it has been in the past? I ask him to appeal to his noble Friend to reconsider what I regard as a very unsatisfactory decision, after the setting up of the Committee, not to take advantage of its considered judgment.

Mr. Gammans

I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by his last remark, or whether he thinks that my noble Friend should make a decision forthwith. That would be quite contrary to the statement I have just made. But I assure the hon. Member and the House generally that no one who has had any contact with this most thorny question would try to put difficulties in the way. I am aware that the Post Office unions were in favour of setting up the Terrington Committee, but, so far as the recommendations of that Committee are concerned, I think that my original statement covered the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Wade

Am I right in understanding from the hon. Gentleman's statement that for the time being, at any rate, his noble Friend has not discarded the principle underlying the Listowel formula?

Mr. Gammans

Nothing is discarded. The position simply is that we are hoping that in the next few months some amicable agreement between the unions will be reached.

Sir R. Grimston

My hon. Friend will doubtless recall that in the last Parliament a definite line was taken upon this issue. May we understand from the present statement that there is no departure from the principles which were then upheld?

Mr. Gammans

Since that time, the Terrington Committee have sat and have made their Report. It is on the Report of that Committee that the Government have to make a decision.

Mr. Hobson

Can the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that there will be no departure from the present practice with regard to recognition without first making to the House a statement regarding the future?

Mr. Gammans

I think I have given that assurance already. I have assured the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend that until this matter is finally settled, there is no question of recognition of any other unions.