HC Deb 12 March 1952 vol 497 cc1526-36

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

10.53 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

My object tonight is to call attention, not for the first time, to certain dangers which are threatening our system of Commonwealth telecommunications. Perhaps I should say, on raising this matter for the second time, that I have no commercial interest in it. My sole interest is to see that the world's leading system of communications continues to hold the first place. Nor, I would suggest, are my motives tonight political.

It is, I think, well known that all parties agreed in 1946 to the arrangements then made whereby the nationalisation, or perhaps I ought to say the internationalisation, of Cable and Wireless took place. To that agreed design completion was made in April, 1950, when Cable and Wireless assets, services and operative staffs were transferred to the General Post Office.

I am not quarrelling with the politics of that decision, but only with some of the practical consequences. The matter has not worked out as it was hoped that it would, and there is now cause for a review, which I hope that the Assistant Postmaster General will undertake.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)

On a point of order. I suggest that what the hon. Member is now putting forward involves legislation. It would involve the entire amendment of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act; therefore, I submit that what the hon. Member suggests is out of order.

Mr. Speaker

I regret that I had not heard that. I hope that the hon. Member will remember the rule about matters requiring legislation.

Mr. Deedes

I have that point in mind, Mr. Speaker, and I will do my best to comply with that Standing Order.

For a variety of reasons the users of Cable and Wireless in recent months have been given increasing grounds for dissatisfaction. Some have arisen from natural causes, some are beyond the control of the company, and some have been due to administration. In consequence, there has been an alarming tendency for customers, particularly in difficult periods, to shift traffic from Cable and Wireless to the American companies, the principal of which are Western Union and Commercial Union. The Australian Press and the Bradford wool traders have done so. Many commercial users also have done so, and in one or two cases large accounts are involved.

Disquiet has been admitted. Difficulties arose shortly after the death of His late Majesty. It is true that between 6th February and 17th February some 800,000 words of Press traffic went over the system, although it is worth pointing out, I think, that due to commercial activity being stilled, the total increase came to only 4 per cent.

That was not really an excuse for the appreciable breakdown in the system. In the present Commonwealth set-up it was clear in the Second World War that some Commonwealth countries resented the fact that the whole Commonwealth system was in the hands of a London trading company. Following an inquiry by Lord Reith, his findings became the basis of the 1946 scheme. Each self-governing country of the Commonwealth took into public ownership its own assets of the company. The break-up and the turnover were gradual and today the organisation has eight autonomous parts—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Southern Rhodesia, Ceylon and ourselves.

This change represents a microcosm of the historic changes which have occurred in Commonwealth relations in wider spheres since the war. Without ample Commonwealth consultations, which are outside the scope of the Assistant Postmaster-General, nothing of that can be changed and I am not pressing the hon. Gentleman on that aspect tonight. But I am stressing that it does contribute to our difficulties that there is no counterpart to the Chairman of Cable and Wireless from 1926 to 1946 and no central direction of the Commonwealth system. It has displayed certain weaknesses—there is a lack of flexibility and power to take hour-by-hour decisions which are vital to a competitive international system.

I am concerned about the eighth terminal, which is our own. We must remember that we are still the nerve-centre of the system. It is worth stressing that a quarter of all the traffic which goes through are messages travelling from one part of the world to another—and the average value of these messages is 4s. 8d. each. It is, therefore, of obvious importance that this end should be above reproach. But it is far from being above reproach.

Two years ago the U.K. terminal was transferred from Cable and Wireless to the Post Office. Already, the machine is overburdened. It seems incredible to me—and I am not attributing blame to one party or another—that this great organisation should have been handed over to the London Telecommunications Region, more or less as a sideline, involving, among other things, the transfer of the Cable and Wireless staff to the Post Office.

On that I may say fairly that it has not proved to be a happy marriage. The staff believe, with some justice, that a deliberate policy of down-grading has been developed. For instance, an assistant manager from Cable and Wireless used to receive£1,200 a year. Under the Post Office he is equated to a superintendent at£630 a year, plus£100 allowance. Cable-room operators on a maximum of£658 a year, are to be replaced by new entrants going up only to£468 a year.

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to compare the rates which are now prevailing for these new entrants with the rates which are given by the commercial companies with which we are competing. I do not think that we can get skilled labour for this job to run this very competitive industry on the cheap.

It would be a grave injustice to suggest that the unhappiness of the staff of Cable and Wireless under the Post Office has contributed to the reduced efficiency of the service. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that he has, in fact, a great fund of good will and skill at his disposal in these staffs, who still take an immense pride in their job. What they want is scope to do it.

The competitive work that this company is involved in, even under the Post Office, depends upon liaison and good relations with customers. Occasional hospitality, it may be, is an essential lubricant of commercial relations. Under Civil Service regulations that is extremely difficult. For example, one is given only 3s. 6d. for a guest at lunch and the host pays for his own. It is extremely difficult to conduct competitive commercial negotiations on that basis. Cable and Wireless, on the other hand, used to pay, and I think still do pay, out-of-pocket expenses.

I should be sorry if anything I said tonight was interpreted as derogatory of the Post Office executives responsible now for Cable and Wireless. It is not so intended. The fault does not lie with them; the fault lay in the initial decision making this transfer. I would not deny that the executives now in charge are doing the best job they can.

I suggest to the Assistant Postmaster-General that an immediate step should be the return of the London station to the company. But I will also tell him what the difficulty there would be. The Post Office will, quite naturally, resist any such decision, out of the feeling that the loss after two years would be a mark of censure. That might be felt about any attempted reorganisation of this system. I imply no mark of censure and hope that none will be assumed.

I hope that the view will be taken that what I speak of is not incompetence, but incompatibility. In their hearts, there are people in the Post Office who know that this change should be made, and I hope that they will not resist it. At Commonwealth level, we have to restore uniformity of control. Cable and Wireless should be put on a fresh commercial basis involving the Commonwealth, and I think that will come. But I should infringe the rules of order if I went any further on that point, so I do not press it tonight.

Mr. Hobson

How could the Commonwealth operate the telegraph service with out contravening the Act of Parliament—if they operated the station in the Azores, for instance?

Mr. Deedes

I cannot explain without infringing the rules of order. I am not pressing the Assistant Postmaster-General, but I mention it as an aspect of the problem.

The Assistant Postmaster-General faces here, in miniature, the kind of problem that faces the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another context: there is some threat to London as the centre of world telecommunications. But my hon. Friend and the Postmaster-General have one or two immediate practical steps at hand and I urge them earnestly to take those steps in time.

11.4 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans)

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) will not expect me, in the short time at my disposal, to go into the detailed working of the cable and wireless services. Nor should I be able to deal with all the specific points he has raised. I can, however, give him two assurances, which, I hope, will do something to remove some of his misgivings.

The first assurance is that my noble Friend the Postmaster-General is very much alive to the complaints that have been made. As I shall try to show, although the position is better than it was a year ago, my noble Friend is by no means satisfied about the speed of the services we are now getting. I can assure my hon. Friend that we need no prodding whatever on the paramount importance of providing the best service possible, not only on Imperial grounds but also on what I might call trading grounds to help our foreign trade. Further, from the Press point of view, we regard rapid communications between ourselves and the Commonwealth as a most vital necessity in every conceivable way.

The second pledge that I can give my hon. Friend is this: I assure him that the Postmaster-General is by no means certain that the present organisation of our overseas communications, so far as the responsibility lies in this country, represents the last word, and that if he is convinced that a reorganisation would improve the service to the public and to the Press he will certainly undertake it, although it was only a very short time ago that the present organisation was set up.

For the benefit of the public generally, I should make clear the limits in which any reorganisation can take place. My hon. Friend set out the position very clearly. There is no question at all of reverting to the system in force before the passing of the Cable and Wireless Act, 1936. Until then, the Commonwealth communications system was very largely directed centrally here from London by a commercial company. This was an arrangement which, from a purely administrative point of view, had much to commend it, but since Commonwealth Governments objected to this degree of centralization—

Mr. Hobson

Not without reason either.

Mr. Gammans

—the Cable and Wireless organisation was split up into the various component parts and each Commonwealth country became responsible for the working of the cable and wireless system in its own country.

The Cable and Wireless Company was purchased by the British Government with the consent of all parties in this House, and in 1950 there came into operation the dual system under which Cable and Wireless, Ltd., which remained a public company with the British Government as the sole shareholder, was responsible for the submarine cable service and for the operation of the cable and the wireless communications in many of the Colonies and foreign countries.

I will give one example. A Press message from this country to Australia which is transmitted by radio would be sent from this country by a radio station operated by the Post Office. It might then be relayed, say, from Nairobi by a station controlled by Cable and Wireless. and finally received by Australia by a station under the control of the Australian Government.

Within the United Kingdom the collection of telegrams for overseas and the relationship with what may be called "the customers" became the work of the Post Office, which also acquired the wireless stations and the plant in this country.

There are various historical reasons why this was done. I do not propose to deal with them now, but it is this element of dual responsibility which, as my hon. Friend has said, is causing my noble Friend the Postmaster-General some concern, and it is only in this direction that any reorganisation could be made.

As my hon. Friend has said, the Post Office operating the London end of the business was placed under the London Telecommunications Region. To put all this non-technically, it is this branch of the Post Office which deals with the customers here in London—they may be private persons or they may be the Press—while Cable and Wireless, Ltd., is responsible for the provision and the maintenance of the means of transmission of messages outside the United Kingdom.

I shall not have time to say any more about all this, but I should not like the House to go away with the impression that the present service is unsatisfactory when conditions of wireless transmission are reasonable. Compared with a year ago, the delays on cables to Australia are less, I am glad to say, even though in February there was the sudden increase in traffic due to the death of His late Majesty. All the same, there have been delays, and what is perhaps disturbing is that the Imperial route certainly appears to have lost some of its trans-Atlantic traffic to the American cable companies. It is for this and other reasons that I have given the assurance to the House on behalf of my noble Friend.

Mr. Hobson

Can the hon. Gentleman say, having made that statement, which I think he will agree is serious, that traffic has been lost to the American companies, to what extent traffic last year was greater than it was the year before? There is a continual growth in traffic.

Mr. Gammans

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood me. We have been losing gradually our proportion of the transatlantic traffic, and that, I think, is a matter which will concern my noble Friend and I think it will concern hon. Gentlemen, too.

May I give one technical illustration which may interest the House? The traffic to Australia is carried partly by radio and partly by cable, but mostly by radio. Neither radio nor cable can carry all the traffic at normal times. During the next two or three years, during the winter months, there is bound to be interruption of wireless traffic due to disturbances caused by sun spots. A new relay station has been set up at Nairobi, and that will help, and there are new relay stations in other parts of the world, but when sun spots interfere with wireless transmission we have to rely upon our cables.

At the end of January there was an unfortunate hurricane at Suva in Fiji which put the cables and the station out of action for several days. We had trouble in Egypt where, on several occasions, the cable was dug up and traffic had to be sent by other routes. But, as I announced in the House a few weeks ago, this year we are renewing part of the Atlantic cable which runs from Porthcurno to Harbour Grace, which has been derelict since the war.

This year we shall be able to replace about half of it, which will give us another cable outlet to the west. If we had enough steel we could finish the whole of the cable this year, but in the field of cable and wireless we have the same conflict we have in so many other fields—the conflict between re-armament and our commercial needs.

May I summarise what I have tried to say. First, the position as compared with a year ago is better, in spite of the abnormal difficulties we have had to face in Fiji and Egypt. Second, by next winter there should be greater improvement because of the use once more of the Atlantic cable and the greater use of relay station facilities in Nairobi. But, third, even with this improvement my noble Friend the Postmaster-General is not prepared to accept the present organisation as being quite the best for the purpose.

On his behalf I am authorised to give an assurance that, realising the importance of the cable and wireless service to the Commonwealth and to the world, he is examining the whole question to see whether any reorganisation, in that part of the service for which the Post Office is directly responsible, can and should be made.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)

As a result of listening to the Assistant Postmaster-General we can come to the conclusion that when delay does take place it is due chiefly to nature, in so far as we have these various sun spot cycles. But I would have been interested to know—and he has not told us—whether the expansion of the radio stations at Barbados and Colombo has been completed, because that was in the programme approved by my right hon. Friend who was Postmaster-General in the last Parliament. I agree that if we can get the Atlantic cable renewed we shall be able to deal with extra traffic which is continually going to Cable and Wireless.

I do not accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman that loss of American traffic is due to inefficiency. It is due to the fact that we have not sufficient cables with which to cope with it. It must be remembered—

Mr. Gammans

I did not say that the loss was due to inefficiency.

Mr. Hobson

Then what was the loss due to? The hon. Gentleman gave no proof whatever that it had been the result of the formation of Cable and Wireless that traffic had been lost to the American companies.

I do not think that the statement ought to have been made. But, knowing the record of the hon. Gentleman in this matter, and the things he has said, particularly in newspaper articles, about Cable and Wireless, I believe he is under a grave disability in speaking from that Box on behalf of Cable and Wireless. I hope that at some future time I shall be able to quote in extenso from what he has said.

I thought it foolish for the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr Deedes) to try to raise on the Floor of the House what are industrial questions. He quoted various rates of pay. Rates of pay and conditions are negotiated in Cable and Wireless in precisely the same way as in the Post Office with the trade unions concerned. If these men have grievances they are entitled to take them up. There is now a proper and fully recognised trade union in Cable and Wireless which did not exist before and to that extent the men employed there are certainly at a great advantage.

I think that the men are doing a good job. One of the troubles is that certain sections of the Press, not all, but some of them, think they ought to have some priority in the sending of messages, despite the fact that they pay less than a commercial undertaking, and there is this continual pressure to get preferential treatment. Further, when we talk about delays which occur for reasons enumerated by the Assistant Postmaster-General, we are not always sure that the delays are at this end. They could be in Australia and one must try to find out to what extent the delays take place in Australia before blaming the British administration entirely.

The fact is that Cable and Wireless was originally carried out by the Post Office. It was then taken over by Cable and Wireless Ltd. as a result of legislation passed by the predecessors of the hon. Gentleman. We then had continuous complaints about Cable and Wireless to such an extent that they were actually imperilling Commonwealth relations during the war. No less a person than the present Prime Minister had to send Lord Reith to Australia to try to smooth things out.

He came back with a scheme which by and large is the same scheme as that under which Cable and Wireless is now administered. I think it works very well. If there had not been the setting up of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board it would have resulted in a complete break-up of Commonwealth work ing. But now it is working efficiently and Cable and Wireless are doing a good job, and so are the Post Office.

The Post Office have a tremendous experience in wireless telegraphy and cables. They were the pioneers, and, in fact, at present, when Cable and Wireless are in difficulties as a result of the neglect of Cable and Wireless Ltd. in looking after their ships, it is Government cable ships which have to do the repairs. I have no doubt that it will be the telegraph ship "Monarch," the property of the Post Office, which will do the work in the North Atlantic.

I did therefore regret the off-hand way in which the hon. Gentleman dealt with these problems in his reply. After all, it is members of his own staff who have to deal with the public and the Press. I am convinced that in the same way as the American companies have their difficulties, we have ours. In my submission, the reason there has been a loss of traffic is due entirely to the growth of the traffic and not in the failure, as some would suggest, of Cable and Wireless, or the Post Office, in carrying out their responsibilities towards the British public or the British Press.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.