HC Deb 26 October 1966 vol 734 cc998-1000
30. Sir G. Nabarro

asked the Postmaster-General why he decided to appoint Mr. J. E. Wall of Electrical and Musical Industries as deputy-chairman of the Post Office Board at a salary of £12,500 per annum whereas the Postmaster-General as Chairman of the Board receives a salary of £8,500 per annum, which is £4,000 less; and whether he is satisfied that Mr. Wall's appointment will lead to better postal services.

Mr. Short

Because £12,500 is paid to a number of heads of nationalised industries, whereas mine is a Ministerial salary. There is nothing new about this situation. The salary of the Director-General of the Post Office has exceeded that of the Postmaster-General since 1956, apart from a few months in 1965.

I do not accept for one moment that postal services are bad, but I am sure that Mr. Wall will do all in his power to eliminate shortcomings in any of the services for which he will be responsible.

Sir G. Nabarro

Does this appointment mean that the tightly-knit bureaucracy in the Post Office is at long last giving way to inspired leadership from private enterprise?

Mr. Short

Mr. Wall has built up a reputation, both in the Civil Service and in industry, as an inspired and progressive leader. I am delighted to bring him into the Post Office. As I said when I made the initial announcement about the change of status, I hope that there will be a great deal of cross-fertilisation.

Mr. Dickens

While in no way wishing to cast any reflection upon Mr. Wall in relation to this appointment, may I ask whether or not the Postmaster-General would agree that the time has now come to make appointments in the public sector of industry from the many able and willing people already working there? Would he not agree that he needs to make a career for the talent in the public service, and that this sort of appointment is most unfortunate?

Mr. Short

I do not agree for one moment that this is a most unfortunate appointment; I cannot imagine a better one. Mr. Wall has unequalled experience, (a) of the Civil Service, (b) of the electronics industry and (c) of industry generally. He is tailor-made for this job.

Mr. Bryan

Will the Postmaster-General accept that we acknowledge the complete integrity of Mr. Wall but, as a matter of principle, is it right that a Government Department should accept monetary favours from its suppliers? Will the Postmaster-General confirm that E.M.I. is paying Mr. Wall for services, not to E.M.I. but to the Post Office? Would it not be far fairer to Mr. Wall if his whole salary was shouldered by the Post Office, for which he will work, and not given in considerable part by E.M.I., which in its normal course of business must be seeking orders from his Department?

Mr. Short

Mr. Wall is certainly having his salary made up by his firm. He is seconded for two years. If we want this kind of cross-fertilisation—if we want people to come from industry to service in the Civil Service or any corporation for a period—then we have to put up with this kind of thing, unless the community is prepared to pay the sort of salaries in the public service as are paid in industry.

Mr. Stratton Mills

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any contractual relationship, or supplying relationship, between E.M.I. and the Post Office?

Mr. Short

Yes, there is. It is not a very big one but there is such a relationship. I am quite sure, and I give my word to the House, that E.M.I. will receive no advantage from this. The problem will be to ensure that E.M.I. does not suffer as a result.