§ 14. Mr. C. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the discontent felt by the majority of civil servants in Mauritius respecting the recommendations of the Working Party which have prejudiced acquired rights of serving officers regarding conditions of service and leave privileges; and whether, before taking any irrevocable step, he will have this matter fully discussed with the trade unions concerned.
§ Mr. ProfumoI am aware that certain differences of opinion which normally arise from a salaries revision have resulted in political controversy. Ministers in Mauritius have, however, shown 489 courage in dealing with these in a non-party spirit. Such problems as arise out of the detailed implementation of the Working Party's recommendations are now being discussed in a friendly atmosphere in the Central Whitley Council in Mauritius.
§ Mr. PannellDoes the hon. Gentleman understand that that blah-blah reply is very far removed from the truth, in so far as the trade unions themselves have made representations? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am making it clear that the hon. Gentleman is making an honest statement as far as he is concerned. I am speaking of the sort of things given to him. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that our complaint here is on a matter of high principle in trade unionism—that trade unions should be allowed to negotiate collectively? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there has been interrogation and victimisation of individual people to get them to sign on the dotted line? Have not the Government enough trouble with trade unions at home without seeking it abroad?
§ Mr. ProfumoI am afraid that I must reply at some length. I understand the hon. Member's problem, but he is suffering under some misconception. There has not been negotiation in the normal terms which he has in mind. A salaries Commission was set up under a Commissioner. The Commission made a Report and a Working Party was set up to go into the whole structure of the Civil Service in Mauritius. These two bodies reported to the Executive Council and the Legislative Council, and the Reports were eventually accepted. The result of these Reports, as is always done in these conditions in Colonial Territories, were presented to those concerned and they were given a six weeks' period to decide whether they liked to stay on the old terms or come under the new terms. Therefore, there was no negotiation in the way in which the hon. Member thinks there has been.
§ Mr. CallaghanIs not that the whole weakness and the cause of the trouble? Is it not the case that a Federation civil servant was not included as a member of the Working Party, that the civil servants had no opportunity of making representations, and that an attempt was made to implement this so-called settlement without negotiation with them? Does the 490 hon. Gentleman not think that this points to a great weakness which needs to be removed?
§ Mr. ProfumoI do not think so. There is a basic misconception here. There has been no departure from normal practice in these matters in Colonial Territories. The procedure was adopted in exactly the same way last year in Fiji and only recently in Somaliland, where a six weeks' period was also given. This procedure is similar to that of the Chorley and Priestley Commissions in this country.
§ Mr. CallaghanWith great respect, how can it be similar to the Priestley Commission in this country, whose Report was discussed with the trade union movement? Is not the complaint here that after the Report was made it was implemented without discussion with the Civil Service trade union?
§ Mr. ProfumoIt would be dangerous to draw too close an analogy, because the Civil Service trade union there represents only 15 per cent. of the Civil Service. It is very immature indeed. There have been negotiations but at one stage the staff side walked out of the negotiations. It is because there are still detailed problems to be settled that the Government of Mauritius, including all the new Ministers, have decided to leave the Working Party set up so that there can be negotiations on small outstanding matters. I believe that this matter has been blown up by political agitation in Mauritius and I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to lend his hand to that.
§ Mr. Pannellrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder, if the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) wishes to follow up this matter, he should give notice to raise it on the Adjournment.
§ 15. Mr. C. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain the differentiation of treatment meted out to higher technical officers in Mauritius with an increase of 28 per cent. against the grant of only 9 per cent. to junior civil servants.
§ Mr. ProfumoBefore the recent revision, the salaries and conditions of service of higher administrative, professional and technical officers in Mauritius did not bear comparison with those offered in other similar territories or in comparable employment outside Government 491 service in Mauritius itself. Apart from any consideration of equity it was rapidly becoming impossible to attract into the Mauritius Government Service an adequate number of officers of the required ability and experience to fill these posts.
Perhaps it will put the matter into perspective for the hon. Member if I tell him that since 1939 the salaries of the higher grades have risen by an average of about 60 per cent. while the salaries of the lower grades have risen by about 200 per cent.
§ Mr. PannellIs the hon. Gentleman aware that it needed the threat of a general strike on the island to get the Working Party set up at all, and that it needed the intervention of the Trades Union Congress here and of the I.C.F.T.U. to get that threat of a general strike withdrawn? Is he also aware that they are dealing with the higher grades purely on a matter of professional competence, but that they appear to be dealing with the lower grades on the basis of the law of supply and demand?
§ Mr. ProfumoI am sorry, but I simply cannot agree with what the hon. Gentleman says.
§ Mr. W. R. WilliamsI should like to deal with the conduct of the Postmaster-General in connection with these revisions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am asking the Minister a question, not hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I ask the Minister why he has reduced by three weeks the time-limit fixed by the Government themselves for some of these employees to opt for the new revised standards and scales of wages? Why has he taken it upon himself to reduce that limit?
§ Mr. ProfumoThe Postmaster-General invited officers of his Department who elected to opt for the new conditions to do so by 10th January, in order that their pay sheets might be prepared in good time. The question whether they signed the option form or not was resolved by the staff side advising its members to sign.
§ 16. Mr. C. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the increase for the lower income groups of civil servants in Mauritius is more than offset by a reduction of local and overseas leave privileges; and why the Government have 492 fixed a time limit for acceptance of option forms by 31st January, 1958.
§ Mr. ProfumoThe lower grades of the Mauritius Civil Service have received an increase of between 18 and 50 per cent. of their existing previous basic pay. The previous cost of living allowance has been consolidated with basic pay giving an average increase of about 6 per cent. in actual cash earned and increasing pension entitlement by an average of some 15 per cent. A five-day week is to be introduced to the extent that this is practicable. In these circumstances I feel sure that the hon. Member will agree with the decision taken by Mauritius Ministers that some curtailment of existing leave privileges—which amount at present to sixty days a year for the lower grades—is not unreasonable and is more than offset by increases in salary and pensionable earnings.
So far as the time-limit for completing the option forms is concerned, six weeks was thought to be sufficient time to enable the officers concerned to come to a decision.
§ Mr. PannellWhy was the date of opting apparently fixed deliberately at least seven days before the trade unions were known to be meeting to consider this offer? Why did the Postmaster-General anticipate that by three weeks? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, before he gives me any more replies, that I have been pursuing this matter with his Department for four months, that I have been acting in an official capacity and have all the evidence he has received?
§ Mr. ProfumoI have given fairly full replies to the hon. Gentleman's Questions, and as this matter is now back, where it should be, with the Whitley Council, I hope that we shall not try to stir up any political agitation here—I know that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to do so—because it is back in its proper channels and we ought to leave it there.
§ Mr. CallaghanIs not it clear from the answers given that there is a very imperfect understanding in the island of how the Whitley machinery ought to work? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Under-Secretary made that clear. Will he consider sending out to the island somebody expert in the administration 493 and running of Whitley machinery, so that both sides may know what is within its ambit?
§ Mr. ProfumoI cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If I have not been able to explain clearly enough, that is my fault, but there is no misunderstanding of the Whitley machinery. Misunderstanding has arisen from the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend imagine that something has taken place which has not taken place. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, a member of the Trades Union Congress has recently been to Mauritius, and this happened following the visit which I paid there myself. It has been extremely valuable, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree.
§ Mr. PannellOn a point of order. In view of the nature of the reply, which is completely unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I will pursue this matter on the Adjournment.