POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)

HC Deb 30 January 1969 vol 776 cc1605-63

7.6 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

I start by expressing regret if the practical effect of your allowing this Adjournment Motion, Mr. Speaker, has been in any way to truncate the interesting debate on the very important subject with which the House has been concerned.

Perhaps it would not be inappropriate for me also to express regret for any consequential inconvenience that may be caused by the debate to the arrangements of hon. Members.

Mr. David Griffiths (Rother Valley)

On both sides.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

To hon. Members on both sides, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. But he, as an old Parliamentarian, would be the first to agree with me that we are debating matters which hon. Members think very well worth while, and that we gladly put up with any personal inconvenience so that we may serve the ends for which we are sent here.

We all recognise that the revised Standing Order No. 9 procedure has given, and continues to give, opportunities for prompt and punctual debate on matters of importance requiring urgent consideration. That being so, it is important that the House takes the opportunities when they come under the Standing Order, and does not let such matters pass without that prompt and punctual debate that we are now entitled to have.

The House has been following with sympathetic concern the difficulties in the postal services. We are not now debating the broad question of the claims of the postal workers, still less the general merits, such as they are, of the Government's prices and incomes policy. If a debate were to be restricted to them it would be very short.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is something that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot debate now.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

I was mentioning that only to pass it over, Mr. Speaker. That was what I think Cicero called praetermissio 2,000 years ago.

Any discussion on matters arising out of the dispute necessarily takes place with a keen awareness of the value of the services rendered by the Post Office and the postal workers. Perhaps we in this House have a particular indebtedness to the postal workers; we must be among the biggest recipients and transmitters of mail in the country. I think that I shall be speaking for all right hon. and hon. Members when I testify to our sense of appreciation of these services rendered to us day in and day out over the years.

The policy of a Postmaster-General in these matters should be to seek to attain the highest common factor of good and inexpensive service to the community with harmony in his relations with the Post Office workers. It is clear that at present the right hon. Gentleman is achieving neither of those desirable objectives, and today's statement came as further evidence of failure.

When a Minister announces a diminution in the services for which he is responsible, and a fortiori when he announces a cessation of an important section of those services, he clearly owes two duties to the House. First, he must explain the necessity for such unwelcome measures and the grounds for supposing that they will help to remedy an unsatisfactory situation. Second, he must identify the powers under which he is acting, so that the House in turn may fulfil its constitutional purpose, to which Parliament owes its origin, of seeing that the Executive acts within the law. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman failed in both those duties.

There was perhaps no great cause for surprise that he failed on the first matter. We have become accustomed to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench not being able to make out a case on its merits for the proposals they bring to the House. We have become accustomed, too, to their obstinate persistence in error, their invincible reluctance to admit mistakes which are patent to all but themselves. We have become accustomed, too, to the spectacle of a Government which, having won power on the promise of the policy of expansion, pursues in office the policies of cuts.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman asked for this debate for a purpose. He must talk about that purpose.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Indeed, my Lord—I apologise for addressing you thus, Mr. Speaker. My only excuse is that I have been engaged in rather extensive forensic oratory. At least I have avoided calling the judge "Mr. Speaker". I certainly want to keep within the bounds of your Ruling, and therefore I shall come straight to the question, giving no more time to those matters which on other occasions can be brought home to right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

The failure on the second matter, the duty to identify the powers under which the right hon. Gentleman acts, was surely enough, or should have been to surprise even the most disillusioned, most cynical observer of Government action. For a Minister not to be able to tell Parliament the powers under which he acts is as disturbing as it is unusual. There are only two possible explanations for such ignorance. One is idleness, and the other is indifference. I hasten to say that nobody, certainly not I, would charge the right hon. Gentleman with idleness. He is, I believe, a diligent and conscientious Minister. But when he has been acquitted on that count it necessarily follows that he must be convicted on what is the graver indictment from a constitutional point of view—an indifference to the question of his legal powers and the rights of Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman's ignorance stems not from idleness but from the attitude of the present Government that they make executive decisions, albeit to the hurt of the country, as they please, and that Parliament listens but does not question. They ask us, improbably enough, to adopt the attitude defined in the words of Burke: Let them venerate where they cannot presently comprehend. In seeking to make themselves the arbiters of executive decision without regard to the constitutional proprieties and the basis of legal power with which they act, they mistake the temper and purpose of the House, or at any rate the temper and purpose of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on these benches. We propose to discharge our constitutional purpose of bringing the Government to account for their actions and seeing that they act only within their powers and responsibility to Parliament.

That is why I felt it to be my duty this afternoon to ask the Minister to identify the powers under which he was taking these steps. That is why I thought that it was my duty to seek to press the matter when he so signally failed. I have brought no charge against him of acting beyond his powers. What I wanted him to do was to make clear to the House, as his basic and inescapable duty is, what he thinks is the legal and constitutional basis of his action. The charge against him is not one of illegality but of a high-handed indifference to whether or not he is acting legally.

There are special considerations in regard to the postal services which make a scrupulous regard to constitutional propriety a matter of particular importance. The Postmaster-General exercises a monopoly. We see that in Section 3 of the Post Office Act, 1953, headed Exclusive privilege of Postmaster-General. Subsection (1) says: Subject to the provisions of this section, the Postmaster-General shall within the British postal area have the exclusive privilege of conveying from one place to another, and of performing all the incidental services of receiving, collecting, despatching and delivering, all letters: … Section 4 make it an offence for anybody to seek to infringe that privilege.

I am very glad to see the right hon. and learned Attorney-General here. Powerful reinforcements have evidently been called up in proportion to the desperate situation in which the Minister feels himself to be. The Postmaster-General is exercising, in words which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, a power coupled with a duty, a duty to transmit letters and provide these services for the public. That duty is buttressed and reinforced by, for example, a statutory obligation placed on the railways to carry the mail.

Therefore, in making these cuts in the service the Postmaster-General, while maintaining his monopoly and his exclusive privilege, is defaulting on his duty. The right hon. Gentleman is suspending the second-class service. What an odious phrase, "the second-class service"—a second-class service from a third-class Government.

The second-class service, so called, is priced at the first-class rate of yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is suspending an integral and important part of the service which it is his national duty to provide. So it comes to this: people must either forgo their right to communicate, or pay more so to do and, in doing so, of course, nullify those objects to which the Government pay lip-service in their Prices and Incomes Policy and stoke up still more the fires of inflation.

Under what powers is it done? I do not regard myself as an expert on Post Office law—a disability I seem to share with the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, in the short time available, I have been looking at the Post Office Act, 1953, Section 8 of which reads: Post Office regulations may make provision as to (a) the time and mode of posting and delivery of postal packets and of the payment of postage and other sums payable in respect thereof under this Act. Going on, sub-paragraph (k) reads: the postponement of the despatch or delivery from a port office of printed or sample packets or postcards to avoid delay in the despatch or delivery of letters. The House will see that there is statutory power to postpone delivery under regulations suitably made in respect thereof. That is not quite the same thing perhaps as suspending the larger part of the service, but that is the power that the Act gives, and such regulations are made by Statutory Instruments which have to be laid before Parliament. The Postmaster-General has not told us that he is operating under any new regulations. In fact he has not told us anything at all.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

The right hon. Gentleman does not know.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

The right hon. Gentleman may know by now. He did not know earlier. We are helping him all we can. The presumption is that he must be acting under existing regulations. Could it, I wonder, be Regulation 17 of the Inland Postal Regulations, 1968, Statutory Instrument No. 1253? If so, it is strange that the Postmaster-General should have forgotten them so soon, because he was defending them in the House as recently as last November. Regulation 17 reads: Any second class letter or printed packet may be withheld from despatch or delivery until any subsequent despatch or delivery. Are those the powers under which the Postmaster-General is acting? Are those the powers under which he is making this wholesale suspension of this service? It may well be, on that wording, that he could squeeze himself within the letter of the law, though clearly in the action that he has taken he is in contravention of it in spirit.

After all, Section 8, under which these Regulations are made, deals with the conditions of the postal service, not the suspension of large parts of it, and postponement. The operative word is "postponement." It is more than a postponement that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today. It is of indefinite duration, with no date given for resumption.

How long does the right hon. Gentleman claim to be able to suspend under these powers, assuming that I have correctly identified the powers under which he is acting? Does he claim to be able to do it for ever? Could he sink the 4d. post without trace and force a flat rate of 5d. for all postal service—as a gesture, presumably, of co-operation and harmony with the policies of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity? Does he claim those powers? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us more precisely than he was able to tell us when asked to identify those powers this afternoon. Does he have that intention, if he has those powers? Is it the next step in the alleged rationalisation of the postal services, for which he is responsible?

Meanwhile, what is to happen to the suspended 4d. letters? Suppose some staunch citizen, some latter-day Hampden, continues to affix a 4d. stamp in accordance with what he deems to be his rights If the Postmaster-General is going to interpret his power in this harsh and wholesale way, if he is going to disregard the spirit of the law, where do we end?

I read the following words, which are innocent on their face value, with a Postmaster-General who can be trusted to comply with the constitutional proprieties, but ominous read in the context of the situation in which we now find ourselves. They are from Section 8(4): Where for any reason any postal packet can neither be delivered nor be returned to the sender, that packet may be destroyed"—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

or otherwise disposed of as the Postmaster-General may direct. Those are the powers that an innocent and confiding Legislature has given—not to this right hon. Gentleman. It might well have shrunk from that; even hon. Gentlemen opposite would still have had sufficient regard for liberty to deny this Postmaster-General those powers. But those are the powers that he has under the Act. Is he then going to say that this provision would entitle him to destroy those 4d. stamped letters because they cannot be delivered owing to the difficulties of the postal service? Is that the next step? Are we to come here next week, or perhaps the week after—after all, every boa constrictor has a short interval for digestion—to be told by the right hon. Gentleman blandly, and perhaps with some simulation of sorrow, that he has no course but to destroy the letters under the powers of Section 8(4)?

Of course, we should like to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. But the fact remains that the doubt is one which he has brought upon himself by his arbitrary and ill-considered action.

References to Statutes and to regulations and phrases like the identification of powers may perhaps have a technical aspect on the face of them, but there is nothing technical or arid about the matters which we raise tonight. The speedy, economical and reliable transmission of mail is of great and real importance, especially to a commercial community such as ours. The wellbeing of the workers in a State monopoly is of great and human importance, for which this House should feel a special responsibility. Regard for the rule of law by Ministers and the propriety of constitutional procedure is also of basic importance as old as this House itself.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this Adjournment debate, thus enabling the House to have regard to its duty in all these important respects and to show, once again, that, whatever the transgressions of the Government, Parliament remains true to its trust.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I join with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to debate this matter this evening. It is right that the House should debate it now. This is a serious affair and not a students' union matter. I trust that from now on we shall treat it in a serious way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member may consider that I am pompous, but the average intelligent Member will recognise that having thousands of postal workers on strike—with the announcements made this afternoon and the great inconvenience caused to our people—is a matter of the gravest importance and it should be treated as such.

The consequences, especially of the suspension of the 4d. second-class post, will be very great. The question is whether my right hon. Friend is acting strictly within the powers of the relevant Act and even whether he can extend the actions that he has so far taken. I am not saying now whether I think that my right hon. Friend is justified—I shall deal with that point later—but it is clear that he has the necessary powers under the Post Office Act, 1953. I am rather surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not quote the relevant parts of the Act which gives my right hon. Friend the power to do what he has done.

I understand that the 1953 Act continues to apply, and the operative Section—Section 2—provides that: The Postmaster-General may appoint for the purposes of the Post Office such officers, deputies, agents and servants as seem to him necessary and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may establish such posts and post offices as he thinks expedient, and collect, receive, forward, convey and deliver in such manner as he thinks expedient, all postal packets, transmitted within or to or from the British postal area or a British postal agency. It is clear that the operative words are in such manner as he thinks expedient and it is obvious that if the Postmaster-General thinks that the 4d. post should be suspended for the time being he is entitled to suspend it under the provisions of that Section.

But that is not really the argument. That point can no doubt be clearly answered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon)

Surely the hon. Member is not saying that completely to refuse to accept a large part of the mail offered can be construed as a means of dealing with and expediting all postal packets. That is what the Act says. It seems to me an extraordinary idea that he should be able to do what he has done.

Mr. Heffer

It may seem extraordinary to the hon. Gentleman but, as far as I undstand it, under the Act the Postmaster-General has these powers.

In addition, I have carefully checked the 90 Sections and the two Schedules of the Act. I have also referred to the Acts of 1961, 1962 and 1965, and although they are irrelevant to the point under discussion I have learned a great deal about the way in which the Post Office operates. I may be able to apply for a law degree, at least in a limited direction, after having carefully studied these Acts. I cannot find anything to show that the Postmaster-General has in any way acted contrary to the powers given him. My question is not so much whether he has exceeded his powers but whether he has used them correctly. It is obvious that he has the powers, but I think it can be said that he has misused them.

We cannot debate this question without considering its background. The Postmaster-General did not come here this afternoon and make his statement in isolation from what has gone before. It was not like the blinding light that struck St. Paul on the road to Damascus; he was not suddenly converted in a way that made him decide to eliminate the 4d. post. He told us this afternoon that the 4d. post was to be suspended as part of the action that he was taking as a result of a strike that involved all the postal workers.

It appears that under the Act my right hon. Friend has only limited powers to reach agreement with the postal workers. If his powers in this direction are more extensive he certainly is not exercising them. It seems to me that other people—his colleagues—are determining the policy that should be adopted by him in connection with the postal situation. I say to him, "Use the powers you have under the Act. Stand on your own two feet. Be independent." A previous Postmaster-General who comes from my city wrote in the Guardian today that my right hon. Friend should stand up and carry on, or resign. My advice to him is to carry on and not resign. But in carrying on he should change the policy, and make certain that he reaches an agreement with the postal workers at the earliest moment, in order to put an end to the chaotic situation that is developing quite unnecessarily.

It is not a question of the 4d. post in isolation. When the 4d. post was first introduced the case for it was badly handled. The impression was given that it was merely a device to disguise a penny increase and that there was no other case for it. In the end it was left to one of the rank-and-file postmen to write in the national newspapers explaining that there was a good case. I would have made him the right-hand man of the public relations department in the Post Office. Today he is probably on strike. I am sure that he will be out with the rest.

The serious question is: what shall we do about the strike in terms of the use of the proper powers? I should like to quote The Times, which I do not normally do, whose editorial on 27th January was very sensible and intelligent in its approach to this question: The union's action, if fully supported by their members "— as we know it has been— will be an increasingly serious drag on industry and commerce—and indeed on everyday life. Mr. Jackson, the general secretary, is justified in implying that if so damaging a dispute had occurred elsewhere than in the Civil Service, the conciliators at the Department of Employment and Productivity would have been at work before this. Some of us have said that when there is a prices and incomes policy on the one side of an Employment and Productivity Department and a conciliation machinery on the other, the officials in that Department must be schizophrenic and constantly suffering crises of confidence in themselves deciding which side they will participate in at any moment, whether to keep to the criteria and the norm or to conciliate. Perhaps they are locked away in two different departments and never meet. I hey certainly have not done on this occasion.

My right hon. Friend referred to the criteria. What does the Union of Post Office Workers say about this? They clearly point out that they are within the criteria and are not arguing about the prices and incomes policy or challenging any award or any related question. They are challenging the fact that they are having forced on them a deal which they have not properly negotiated. They have negotiated an agreement which has been tied to something else.

The easy and quick answer is not to create the atmosphere which my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon created, unfortunately, of a long siege and further battles with the postal workers, an atmosphere not of conciliation but of further warfare. That is not what we want. The solution is very simple. Let us have some conciliation, some further talking. Let us get a settlement to the problem and get the strike over; let us use the available machinery. If we do this, I shall support the Government in every possible way. That is the message which we must give my right hon. Friend this evening.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour (Norfolk, Central)

If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) supports the Government in this matter, it will be a novelty both for him and for them. Although he made an interesting speech, it was surprising that he spoke second. This afternoon the Postmaster-General revealed that he did not know whether he had the necessary legal powers. The fact that he did not answer my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) suggests that he still does not know.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse)

What I said this afternoon was that I am satisfied that I have the full legal powers to take the action which I announced this afternoon. I have no doubt at all about that point.

Mr. Gilmour

The right hon. Gentleman announced that he was satisfied but he was unable to give any reasons for his satisfaction, and assertion without supporting argument is not very valuable.

Normally in these debates we have a good deal of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, because the disasters and idiocies which have occurred in the administration of the Post Office since he has been there are not entirely his fault. Certainly, many of the things that went wrong over the introduction of the two-tier system were the fault of his predecessors. Certainly, much of the present difficulty is not his fault but that of the Cabinet and particularly of the First Secretary.

We read in the papers only last week that the right hon. Gentleman is "hopping mad"—I do not know whether that is his phrase—with the straitjacket which Ministers have put on him: Mr. Stonehouse is said to have told his colleagues that it was absurd and idiotic"— a phrase which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton might well have used— for Mrs. Barbara Castle's Productivity Department officials to try to lay down the details of every productivity agreement as though they knew more about the industry than his own officials. Nearly everyone on this side would agree with him, if that is what he said.

But if we are normally sympathetic, we must be far less so this evening because of the way that the right hon. Gentleman behaved this afternoon. He was no longer just the fall guy. He was himself throwing the custard pies around, and his chief target was the public. His action this afternoon, as well as, probably, impermissible legally, was quite inexcusable politically and commercially. What he should have done was make an appeal to the public to use the postal services as little as possible. That was the way to behave in a civilised and democratic society. The party opposite always rushes for compulsion if there is any way at all of using it. That should not be the way in this country. It is certainly not the way of this side of the House. A voluntary appeal would have been more in accordance with this country's traditions and far more effective in curtailing the postal services.

Instead of appealing to the public, the right hon. Gentleman has cut out the 4d. post altogether. That is the final culmination of his introduction of the two-tier system, and it is the final nemesis of the facile and futile optimism which he has exhibited since the very beginning of this system. First came the advertisements, then the switches of policy, and all the time the right hon. Gentleman has said that things were going better than was expected and that it was a success. Every time that we have had a debate, he has said, "Now more and more people are using the first-class service and this is a success". Now that he has stopped the 4d. post, and has achieved 100 per cent. use of first-class mail, no doubt he will claim that this also is a great success and much better than expected.

On any view, the right hon. Gentleman should not have these powers under which he has purported to act. Even if he has them, apparently he did not know that he had them. He was, therefore, apparently prepared to act regardless of the law. He is like a man who writes a cheque irrespective of whether he has money in the bank, not caring whether it is a dud or not.

As to the legal aspect, it does not seem that Regulation 17 gives him the powers that he claims. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the relevant Section 8 deals with conditions of the postal service and talks about postponement, not suspension. I do not think that the words of Regulation 17: Any second class letter or printed packet may be withheld from despatch or delivery until any subsequent despatch or delivery mean or can be made to mean that all second-class letters will be suspended indefinitely. If the Government intended to take such wide power, they should have said so. Under one of the basic constitutional provisions of this country, this action by the Postmaster-General is illegal. The first and most important provision under the Bill of Rights of 1689 lays down That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without the consent of Parliament is illegal". It also states: That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is illegal". It seems clear that the purported action of the right hon. Gentleman today comes under the first heading. This is not a dispensing power allowed in certain circumstances but a suspending power which the right hon. Gentleman has claimed, and that is illegal by the Bill of Rights—unless there is plain Parliamentary sanction for it. Some people believe that we need a new Bill of Rights, and there are many cogent arguments for that. Whether or not we do, our first job is to obey the Bill of Rights that we have, the one under which we have lived for nearly 200 years. It is part of our condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman that he has disregarded some of our most important constitutional provisions.

As the hon. Member for Walton rightly said, the Postmaster-General has by his action today—and, I would add, by his other actions, too—created a bad atmosphere over the whole dispute. He has succeeded in entirely disrupting the nation's communications. While we normally deplore the quick turnover in Postmasters-General, there is now a case for a speeding-up of the turnover once again.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson (Bristol, North-East)

The debate is taking place against a difficult background because we are conscious of the delays and mounting chaos in postal services throughout the country. When I heard my right hon. Friend say that he was suspending the 4d. inland second-class letter service, I was not surprised. I wish to make it clear at the outset that I do not believe that he is acting illegally in any way.

As Chairman of the Post Office Board, the Postmaster-General must be in a position, backed up by countless Acts and Statutory Instruments—hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to many of them; I will not weary the House by repeating them—to suspend, delay or vary any services when events make that absolutely necessary.

I was extremely disappointed at the tenor of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who treated the matter with great levity and used hack Tory arguments against the second-class mail system. We have heard those arguments ad nauseam, and I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that remarks of that kind do nothing to enhance our ability to debate postal affairs in a decent light and do nothing to enhance the public's view—I refer to people generally and not merely to Post Office employees—of our ability to deal sensibly with a matter of such great public importance.

As I listened to the Postmaster-General, I thought that he had no alternative but to take the action contained in his statement. On Monday, I forecast that there would be chaos if something were not done to bring an end to this unfortunate dispute. I said that there would be chaos because postal workers are absolutely sure that they are absolutely right in this dispute and because it is clear that, until something is offered to them and until there are further discussions, with the Post Office or with other advisers, there is no possibility of the dispute coming to an end. Postal workers are intent on defending their position and the union is intent on looking after the interests of its members.

As soon as I heard my right hon. Friend speak about the suspension I intervened to question him because I cannot understand how it will operate. What will happen to the 4d. mail that has been posted? I posted some mail using 4d. stamps and I should like to know what will happen, not only to my envelopes but to the many others that will be posted throughout the country. Will a letter posted with a 4d. stamp be returned to me, which is a long and cumbersome process, will it remain in the sorting office to which it has happened to go until such time as the backlog has been cleared, or will it be delivered to the intended address and a surcharge of 2d. made, which is the difference mutiplied by two? My right hon. Friend's statement that the mail is to be suspended in a certain classification is not, therefore, the end of the story for the letters which have been posted.

In some major cities where the sorting is in a chaotic state there are special boxes for 4d. posting. Will they be closed so that people cannot post 4d. letters? If so, what will happen to 4d. letters which are placed in the 5d. boxes which, until now, have been alongside the 4d. ones? I want my right hon. Friend to know, however, that I appreciate that he had no alternative but to suspend some sections of Post Office business.

Using the Post Office accounts for 1967–68 as a guide, I have made a check to see what the effect of my right hon. Friend's announcement will mean to the Post Office in terms of revenue. I trust that he will pass this information on to the D.E.P. because a serious situation could arise. Taking the 4d. mail as representing two-thirds of total postings for a year—I trust that this dispute will not last that long—in a year the Post Office would lose £123.4 million. The parcel post suspension would cost £46.1 million in a year, giving a grand total of £169½ million.

The suspension of the parcel post and the 4d. mail represents a loss of £3.26 million in a week and, if my right hon. Friend prefers to face the facts on a daily basis, it would cause a loss of £550,000 per day. These are the losses which the Post Office can suffer as a result of the measures announced today by my right hon. Friend.

It is not unfair to compare these losses with the issue involved in the dispute. The figures which I have used come from the Post Office accounts. My next figures—they are important in assessing the situation—are only estimates, but they are probably undervalued because they are estimates of something which the union concerned does not, in this case, wish to accept. I will not develop this matter further because we went into it last Monday evening. We find that the total cost per year involved in the dispute is £50,000, against a loss per day to the Post Office as a result of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend of £550,000.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

Is it not a fact that the Postmaster-General and his Department have spent more on advertising in the Press today than would have covered the extra cost to which my hon. Friend is referring? Is not this absolutely stupid?

Mr. Dobson

It is absolutely stupid, but I would not say that more has been spent on advertising in one day than the estimate of £50,000 which I have given.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Do not kid yourself.

Mr. Dobson

Suffice to say that, comparing the estimated cost involved in the dispute with a loss of £550,000 per day, one can see how the Post Office could find itself in dead trouble, particularly as we are seeking to run it on a commercial footing. This cannot be done with losses of this magnitude.

I have listened with care to the remarks made today and have studied what was said in the debate on Monday. Having done that, I am still not sure where we stand in the dispute. I gather that my right hon. Friend claims—he must be speaking for his right hon. Friends in other Departments—that the dispute is against Government policy. The union, meanwhile, takes the clear view that the terms of the dispute are not outside the Government criteria. The problem is whether or not we will get an explanation of how it could fall outside the Government criteria, the area in which it falls outside them and the part of Government policy against which it offends.

Perhaps it is best to start by considering the 5 per cent. which has been offered to, and accepted by, all other Civil Servants. How does that fall outside Government policy? If 200,000, or perhaps even 800,000, people have had that percentage, all within the Government criteria, we must take it that it does not fall outside their policy. I cannot understand, therefore, how it can be said that 5 per cent. would in this case be outside Government policy.

We must then consider the 2 per cent. offered by the Post Office and related to a productivity bargain. If it is so related, can it be wrong? If there can be a copper-bottomed productivity bargain, it must be within the Government criteria; and one cannot have a copper-bottomed productivity bargain unless something is agreed at local level. There must be agreement about the figures which are being discussed. There need not be a serious dispute about the odd £500,000, so to speak, but there must be general agreement about the figures being used. One must consider how they measure up to the criteria and there must be agreement about them.

Much has been said about acceptance of the 5 per cent. and the need for more talks on productivity bargaining. I understand that the union is prepared to do that, despite provocation from Ministers. I refer not to my right hon. Friend but to Ministers responsible for other Civil Service Departments. I urge the Postmaster-General to reconsider this whole matter.

As my right hon. Friend has said on several occasions that the union must not expect something more than other civil servants have been offered, we are entitled to ask what he means by "something more than". That is where the productivity bargain comes in and even other sections of the Post Office accept this. If this issue is holding matters up, I trust that my right hon. Friend will explain the matter to the D.E.P. and even possibly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Somebody should tell certain other Government Departments that only a small section of the Post Office is involved in this type of productivity bargaining at this stage and that a principle is at stake. That is why the rest of the postal workers are coming out in support.

I warn my right hon. Friend, as I did on Monday, that this is a serious dispute which will not be improved until further discussions take place. Nevertheless, I wish to inform hon. Gentlemen opposite that, whatever the rights or wrongs of the Motion, I shall be opposing the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East—[Interruption.]—because I do not believe that he is right, in fact or in law. My right hon. Friend has every right to suspend services, as Chairman of the Post Office Board, and, for this reason, I am unable to support the Opposition in this matter.

Having said that, I urge my right hon. Friend for goodness sake to bring this strike to an end by having further discussions. He must not allow it to go on and on so that money is thrown away. This can only cause backlog and chaos. Considering that only £50,000 is involved, there could be a settlement. The alternative is a loss of £550,000 a day. I trust that my right hon. Friend accepts that he must think again.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)

I am particularly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me immediately after the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) because, if I may say so, I thought that he outlined the basis of the dispute with great clarity, and the case which he advanced for the benefit of the Postmaster-General, on behalf of the unions, was unanswerable. He knows already, from exchanges at Question time, that he and I have exactly the same points of view on this aspect of the dispute.

It is always a particular joy to listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). Today we are particularly grateful to him for introducing a debate of significance and importance. I join with him in paying tribute to those members of the Post Office staff at all levels—postmen, post office sorters, telegraphists, telephone operators and others—who serve us in this House so well and with such diligence and such immense devotion to duty at all times.

I also pay tribute to postal workers generally throughout the country who have to carry out their service to the public, often under appalling conditions in the sense that they have to cope with bad weather and similar hazards. They have done this with immense courage, often unrecognised by the public at large. I would also join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the words he used to describe the Postmaster-General. He referred to him as a "diligent and conscientious Minister", and I share that view.

I pass over the failure of the right hon. Gentleman to meet what I regard as the reasonable proposals of the telegraphists, whose demands are the cause of the Postmaster-General's mysterious and, if I may say so, monstrous decision announced this afternoon. I pass over this because the case has been adequately stated by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East. I know, too, that it can be argued that the 4d. postal service is such a failure that in the context of the two-tier postal service its suspension might be irrelevant. I will explain later why I do not believe this to be the case.

Apart from the fact that some 4d. letters have been known to be delivered on time, many important communications are posted under this stamp for reasons of economy. It is not the large business corporations, the large Government offices working on the taxpayers' money, or the wealthy sector of the community which will be affected and hurt by the Postmaster-General's decision. On the contrary, it will be those who depend for their livelihood upon businesses which have a small income but are, nevertheless, dependent upon the postal services to keep their customers informed or to deliver their goods.

It is those people who are living on retirement pensions, those who are unfortunately unemployed, those who are least able to bear any additional financial burden at this time who will be hit beneath the belt by that decision. It is for that reason that I believe that the House of Commons is right to look very carefully at the legality of the Postmaster-General's announcement. Whilst I do not claim to be any authority in matters of the law, and certainly I would not attempt to cross swords with any hon. and learned Gentleman, I feel that the arguments advanced, to which I have listened very carefully, by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) do not have the same stamp of authority as the arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East If I am to be guided on matters of law I have to say to the House that I would prefer to be guided by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The main question is the constitutional issue raised by the decision. The truth is that the Postmaster-General is arbitrarily suspending a vital part of the Post Office service without the special authority of this House. It may be said that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he has the powers and it may be that he is in a position now, as he was not at Question time, to quote the exact section of the relevant Act under which he considers he obtains those powers. In a matter of this sort, and for reasons which have already been enumerated by other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, this is the kind of issue on which the House should be the final arbiter. It is wrong for an Order of this kind to be made at such brief notice without proper opportunity for debate and a vote in the normal way.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)

May I query one point? The hon. Member refers to an Order. This gives the impression that this is a Statutory Instrument. My impression is that this is a purely arbitrary executive act of the Postmaster-General, without any Order at all.

Mr. Bessell

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he is right. I had missed a point, and I thank him for steering me on to the right course. I accept what he says.

Another important matter is a consideration which arises today and which would not have arisen 12 months ago. Whatever the merits or otherwise—and I recognise that I should be out of order if I attempted to discuss them—of a two-tier postal system, we have such a system.

Sir Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)

We had.

Mr. Bessell

At least we had one until today, as the hon. Gentleman says. It can be argued that under the old system of the 3d. and 4d. post there was, in a sense, a two-tier system. But it was not a two-tier system as we know it now, as it has been practised in the United States for very many years, a policy which was adopted by the Post Office when the two-tier system was introduced. Now that we have a two-tier system, to take the step already announced is a very serious matter.

It is relevant to quote these figures, given to me at the end of December. They came from postmasters in my constituency. First, the postmaster at Bodmin told me that first-class mail passing through the sorting office there was approximately 20 per cent. of the letter mail, and that the second-class mail made up the remaining 80 per cent.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham. West (Mr. English) is being facetious from a sedentary position. Mail does not consist—I give him this information so that he may be better acquainted with the postal service—entirely of letters. I was referring to letters, and I said letters.

Liskeard had a first-class mail figure of approximately 30 per cent. at the end of December with second-class mail making up the remaining 70 per cent. This means that if the figures reflect a national average, at least 70 per cent. of all letter mail is suspended. This is a very serious situation.

The question has been raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East about what will happen to the 4d. letters already in the pipeline and in the pillar boxes. If they are to be delivered, how will they be distinguished with certainty from letters with a 4d. stamp which may be posted after the Postmaster-General's decision came into effect? We must know, if they are not to be delivered, what will happen to them.

Mr. Stonehouse

There is a simple answer—date stamp.

Mr. Bessell

The right hon. Gentleman says that the answer is the date stamp, by which I take him to mean that anything which has today's stamp on it, whether it be 4d. or 5d., will go through the pipeline in the usual way.

Mr. Stonehouse indicated assent.

Mr. Bessell

I see the right hon. Gentleman nods his assent.

Mr. Stonehouse

So that there is no misunderstanding, any 4d. mail that we have now will be delivered as soon as possible after priority is given to the first-class mail.

May I take the opportunity of replying to the other point raised, because it is important to get these questions correct early in the debate? If there is second-class mail posted after the suspension from tomorrow, we will put that mail on one side and deal with it just as soon as we can. We are not undertaking to deliver that 4d. mail, because it is essential that we maintain the priority service of the first-class mail.

Mr. Bessell

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it clears up points which have been bothering hon. Gentlemen. There is a further point, and I will gladly give way to him if he wishes to interrupt again. The point that concerns me is to do with the 4d. post now in the pipeline. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be delivered when the 5d. first-class mail was dealt with. Does that mean that it follows that the 5d. mail at present in the pillar boxes, and in the pipeline, will be dealt with first, then the 4d. mail, or does it mean that the 5d. mail there, plus the 5d. mail which will arrive tomorrow and on the following days, will take priority over that 4d. mail at present in the pipeline.

In other words, can we be assured that the 4d. mail in the pipeline at the moment will be dealt with immediately after the 5d. mail now in the pipeline? This is the point on which we must have an assurance. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to answer this at the end of the debate. If the 4d. mail now in the pipeline is not only to wait until the 5d. mail has been delivered but until tomorrow's 5d. mail and the 5d. mail thereafter has been delivered, then obviously, the right hon. Gentleman would not be discharging his duty under the terms of the Act. He would be suspending mail indefinitely which had been posted in good faith by the public and for which, obviously, they expected to receive the service for which he is responsible under the terms of his office.

The fundamental issue is a very simple one. At Question Time today I asked the Postmaster-General if he would accept the formula offered to him by the union responsible for the telegraphists. If he would do this—and I echo the words of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East—then I believe the strike could be brought to an end and negotiations could commence. It is insufferable, and very dangerous, that a situation should be created such as we have today when it could be resolved in this way.

There is another point to this fundamental issue, the misuse of a monopoly power by the Postmaster-General. He has this ability to dictate not only to the public but to the Post Office workers. It is wholly wrong that this kind of situation should be allowed to continue. The right hon. Gentleman is—and I do not say this in any impertinent or patronising sense—an honourable man. If, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, he is being ruled by his Cabinet colleagues, then let him act according to his own instincts and his own judgment, and let him restore the 4d. post and end this strike now under the terms available to him.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

Until five minutes ago I was a little concerned to discover what it was that my right hon. Friend had done as distinct from the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)—namely, the powers under which he had done it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman put in a considerable number of words a point which amounted to saying that the Postmaster-General had the power to postpone delivery of letters under the Post Office Act, 1953, but that nowhere in that Act was it stated that he had the power to refuse acceptance of letters.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Suspend.

Mr. English

I did not use the word "suspend". As I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, he said that the 1953 Act empowered the Postmaster-General to postpone delivery of letters that he had accepted but gave him no power to refuse to accept letters. Is that a correct statement of the argument?

Sir D. Walker-Smith

It goes beyond that. There is the question whether the basic power of postponement under Section 8 covers a suspension of indefinite duration covering a whole section of the service such as this. That is the point of doubt on the legal position.

Mr. English

I am aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can state his opinion about what the words mean, but, as I understood it, his quotations from the relevant Act were to the effect that I have just mentioned, namely, that there is a specific statement that my right hon. Friend can postpone the delivery of letters—presumably letters that he has accepted for delivery. The right hon. and learned Gentleman merely pointed out that nowhere in the Act is there a specific statement that my right hon. Friend can refuse to accept letters.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is on distinctly weak ground even on that last point, because he must be aware, as surely many hon. Members are, that the Post Office does many things which are not laid down by Statute. To take a simple example, the Post Office opens letters and taps telephones, if approriate circumstances warrant it. Any Member of the House can determine from the appropriate White Paper that the power to tap telephones is a statutory power—that there is a statutory right to do so.

There is no statutory right to open letters, but the practice has been going on for centuries. There may be such a power in in the new Post Office Bill, but that is a different matter. I believe that the practice was instituted by Oliver Cromwell, but, strangely enough, in law it is defended by the Royal Prerogative. It is a little odd that Oliver Cromwell should have instituted a practice which is defended by the Royal Prerogative. It is not a valid argument to say that an ancient Department like the Post Office, which was not set up by Act of Parliament, cannot do something merely because it is not stated in an Act of Parliament that it can. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that this is so.

Until the intervention by my right hon. Friend a short while ago, everybody was concerned to find out what this mysterious term "suspend" might mean. I think that my right hon. Friend was ill-advised in the terms of the statement he made this afternoon. Civil servants and Ministers naturally wish to keep statements short, because the House wishes to listen only to short statements from Ministers. In this case it would have been a little clearer if instead of using the word "suspend", which not only does not appear in any Act of Parliament but which also is not clear in itself, my right hon. Friend had said "postpone delivery", which is what he implied in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell).

I took it this afternoon when listening to my right hon. Friend that he meant that he would refuse acceptance of second-class mail and therefore, obviously, not deliver it. By the intervention he made a few moments ago he made it clear to me at any rate—perhaps earlier I had been a little naive or a little dim—that he now intends not to refuse acceptance but merely to postpone delivery. It seems that this demolishes the legal argument which was raised.

Why has my right hon. Friend taken this action? Why has he not, for example, suspended the first-class mail? My right hon. Friend argued this afternoon that this action is taken not because of the one-day strike but because of the overtime ban; it is the overtime ban that is causing the backlog, not the one-day strike. I do not mean that the two things are alternatives to each other and completely incompatible. I mean that my right hon. Friend's argument, as I took it, was that the overtime ban cumulatively creates a backlog and the one-day strike presumably creates one day's backlog.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

Does this argument also apply to the refusal of the Postmaster-General and his officers to accept parcels? That is a refusal to accept, not a suspension of delivery. Does the hon. Gentleman consider parcels to be in the same case?

Mr. English

I do not know that this is so at the moment. Until about 10 minutes ago I was under the impression that letters were being refused delivery, but my impression was obviously incorrect. I will leave it to my right hon. Friend to say exactly what his action on parcels is and whether it is legal.

The important thing I am concerned about at the moment is the question of letters. It is obvious that the one-day strike, in so far as it is relevant at all—my right hon. Friend said that many people had been at work today—can at the most, even if it were fully effective throughout all services of the Post Office, cause only one day's backlog. Therefore, presumably my right hon. Friend's prime reason for suspending the second-class mail is the overtime ban, a backlog which presumably grows cumulatively as overtime is not worked.

What intrigues me is that, as far as I understand it, the Post Office target for first-class mail was 40 per cent. of letters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson) said that one-third of mail was first-class mail. The hon. Member for Bodmin said that it was slightly less than that. Whatever the figure is—let us say 30 per cent. in round figures—is it suggested that 70 per cent. of the letters delivered are dependent for their sorting and delivery upon overtime? If my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene, I shall be only too pleased to give way.

Mr. Slonehouse

The target we had for first-class mail was 32 per cent. Before this disruption we had achieved that.

Mr. English

So 30 per cent. is a fair round figure. Thus, we are saying that we shall ban, or, rather, suspend or postpone delivery of 70 per cent. of the letters of the United Kingdom because of a ban on overtime primarily, with the exception of one day's delay caused by any strike action which may have taken place. Let us consider the implication of that. We are saying either that we want people who hitherto have sent their mail second class to transfer to first class—and my right hon. Friend specifically said this afternoon that he did not wish that to happen—or we are saying that 70 per cent. of the normal letter delivery of the United Kingdom is dependent upon overtime working. Frankly, I do not believe that it is.

I do not believe that 70 per cent. of United Kingdom letter delivery it dependent on overtime, but, if it is, it reveals something about the Post Office which would be plainly disastrous. It would not be my right hon. Friend's responsibility because presumably, such a state of affairs was reached over a number of years but it would be a disastrous enterprise were 70 per cent. of a major activity such as this to be dependent on overtime. But, if it is not, what does my right hon. Friend mean by saying that he does not wish people who hitherto sent second-class mail to transfer to the first-class service?

Let us take the experience of the individual back bencher. If someone writes to me and says, "If you do not take such-and-such action by Thursday of next week, I shall not have had something to which I believe myself to be entitled", I should probably treat that as cause for using the 5d. post. There is a time limit involved; there is good reason for dealing with the matter within a specific few days. If, on the other hand, someone writes to me and asks that there should be an Amendment to, say, Clause 38 of the Post Office Bill now passing through Parliament, there is no time limit involved. I can discuss the matter with the Department or in the House and write back at leisure.

However, by implication, with an indefinite time limit for suspension of delivery, I am now not supposed to write back at all. I am not supposed to give such a letter first-class mail treatment so that it does eventually reach my constituent, and, if I write my letter and put it in the post box, I have no guarantee of when it will arrive. It may presumably take a year from now if the dispute goes on that long. I do not understand it. I should have thought that, if there is an overtime ban, the logical suspension would be of the first-class mail. The only basic difference in first-class mail is that there is a guarantee, not a legal guarantee but a moral guarantee, of delivery by a certain hour the next day.

In the event of an overtime ban, it would, surely, be legitimate to say that this guarantee can no longer be given, that we shall deliver things as soon as we can, that we shall deliver them in the order in which they come, but we can no longer make the guarantee that we shall deliver by a specific time. For example, if half an office is down with influenza, the Post Office could say, "We have only half the staff at work, and we cannot supplement their efforts by overtime because there is an overtime ban". Another office, without influenza, might deliver everything.

Mr. Bessell

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, and he is putting a logical case. But does he not fear, as I do, that the effect of suspending the 4d. mail will be to cause people to use the 5d. mail, in spite of the Postmaster-General's request, so that the ultimate effect will be to put a surcharge on the postal service?

Mr. English

I shall come to that point. I am taking it at the moment on the assumption that my right hon. Friend's request is complied with. One must, in all conscience, first deal with what the Postmaster-General said he wanted to occur, without making assumptions as to what might occur, which cannot be attributed to my right hon. Friend if he did not say that they were desirable.

I should have thought it wholly reasonable to defer delivery from, say, one post to the next of a particular piece of mail, which, in effect, would mean transferring first-class to second-class mail, and that, in effect—to use the vague word which I have criticised before—means suspending the first-class service. I cannot see that the consequence of an overtime ban can logically be said to be that one will not deliver at all while the ban continues 70 per cent. of the mail of the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East—I come now to the point just made by the hon. Member for Bodmin—said that the Post Office would lose about £550,000 a day Conceivably that is true, but true only if one makes the assumption that everyone blindly follows the request made by the Postmaster-General today. I am sure that many people will, on the assumption that the ban does not last very long. It may well be true in the early stages but, if it lasts for a month, the position may be different. In the initial stages, people will presumably wait and see what happens next week, or in a little longer than that. Otherwise, whether by desire or not, my right hon. Friend will be saying in effect that if people are prepared to pay 20 per cent. more, the Post Office will deliver their mail. It will then cease to be a matter of priority.

He did not mention whether, for example, he would be looking at the delivery of the mail of large organisations, of which a noteworthy example would be the football pools. Will he look at their deliveries to see whether the amount of first-class mail delivered to them last week was roughly the same as the amount now being posted as first-class main this week? It could well be doubled. Is there to be any control? My right hon. Friend has made a specific request, but what will he do if it is not carried out? If it is not carried out, he will be merely charging more for the existing service, for a service which in effect the user does not desire, but which he will be forced into using by the action taken.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)

The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is perfectly correct to say that the Postmaster-General should be saying that he cannot continue to carry out his promise to deliver the first-class mail and that the first-class mail should, therefore, be dropped at this stage of the proceedings. I live in S.W.I, and the guarantee to deliver my first-class mail by first post has not been honoured on any day of this week. I have not had any post before 11 o'clock on any day, and when I got back to my flat last night, having left it about 10 o'clock in the morning, I found 25 letters on the floor waiting for me. The first-class mail is not getting through.

I am very surprised that the energetic and intelligent Postmaster-General did not come to the House this afternoon armed with these legal references. In the Christmas holidays he pursued his monopoly and his privilege of his legal rights with the utmost fervour. He stopped the brownies in Hampshire from delivering their dear little Christmas cards which they were collecting through the Women's Institute. He exercised his legal rights then and he must therefore have been studying his monopoly rights with great assiduity during the Christmas holidays. But when he comes to face the nation's highest forum, he does not have a clue about what his legal rights are, and he relies on some backroom lawyer—I hope that it was a lawyer—who tells him that he is in the clear.

Is this the end of the second-class service, which is suitably to be honoured in the near future by having a red stamp? If it is, and if the suspension goes on for any length of time, the effect on the public will be an increase of 25 per cent. in postage rates. The public now sends two-thirds of its mail by the 4d. post, for which it will soon have to pay 5d., which means that the public will have to spend an extra £110,000 a day to get its mail through. For every day the suspension continues and the public chooses to take advantage of the so-called offer to gets its mail through on the 5d. rate, national costs will be inflated by £110,000.

I wish to pursue the question of what is to happen to the 4d. letters, and, indeed, the 5d. letters, posted, in all innocence, today. I posted some this morning when I left home at about 11 o'clock. I posted a few more when I reached here half an hour later. They were innocent postings. They will not receive today's date stamp because they have not gone through the Post Office. Therefore, presumably, when the 4d. letters which I posted this morning are put with the rest of the 4d. letters tomorrow—and if they are lucky they might get tomorrow's date stamp on them—they will be held back day after day so that the 5d. letters can get ahead of them.

The Postmaster-General this afternoon talked as if there would be no collection on Sunday because, he said, Sunday collection was based on overtime rates. If that is so, the 4d. letters posted today will not, presumably, get away tomorrow. They might be date-stamped on Saturday if they were lucky. [An HON. MEMBER: "Post early for Christmas."] As my hon. Friend says, the Postmaster-General will no doubt be soon issuing advice to us to post early for Christmas.

The separation of the first-class mail from the second-class mail in the sorting office depends on the intelligence and skill of one or two sorters. But it appears to me that the late delivery of the first-class mail and the non-delivery of the second-class mail depends on there being no overtime worked by the other sorters in the office. I should like that point to be cleared up. If that is right, if this strike is to go on for any length of time and if no overtime is to be worked during it, there will be not only an almost indefinite suspension of the second-class post, but no first-class post at all. The net effect will be that the public will be forced to pay an extra £110,000 a day for the 5d. postage service and people in the big cities will not have any guarantee that the 5d. letters will be delivered before 11 o'clock in the morning.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Hobden (Brighton, Kemptown)

Because of the nature of the debate, we are forced to speak about something largely irrelevant to the basic issue. However, if we want an emergency debate, it must be in relation to a particular subject.

The debate has tended to be confined to the legal issues—whether my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is legally able to suspend the 4d. post, whether his actions are correct, and things of that kind. I could not imagine my right hon. Friend taking such action if he had not armed himself beforehand with the necessary Statutes and backing which gave him the right to take it. Obviously, he has the right to suspend the 4d. post. Under the heading of Deferment of second-class letters and printed packets". paragraph 17 of Statutory Instrument No. 1253 of 1968 clearly states: Any second-class letter or printed packet may be withheld from despatch or delivery until any subsequent despatch or delivery. When hon. Members opposite speak on this subject, they bring out all their old opposition to the Post Office and what has taken place in the Post Office and, in particular, get off their chests some of the hatred which they had when they got into a tizzy about the introduction of the two-tier system.

Mr. John Page

I have listened with care to the exposition of the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that the Postmaster-General will withhold letters from delivery but not suspend collection? Is the hon. Gentleman under the impression that the members of the public will be able to pop their 4d. letters into the box and then wait until they come out at the other end, or are they supposed not to post them?

Mr. Hobden

I shall be dealing with that point in the course of my speech. The Postmaster-General has the right to suspend the service. Hon. Gentlemen speak as if the withholding of second-class mail were something new which came in with the two-tier system. When the Opposition were in power, second-class mail was often held back to give priority to other mail. This is nothing new.

I am puzzled by the actions of my right hon. Friend, and I will read part of the statement which he issued: I am giving regional directors similar discretion to maintain or reopen services internal to their regions or with neighbouring regions, by arrangement, as circumstances permit. Does that mean that he has postponed the 4d. service but that regional directors in certain areas will be allowed to maintain the service?

People may be told that the 4d. mail has been suspended, but they will still post their letters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) wanted to know how the Postmaster-General will be able to continue the 5d. mail without its being affected by the suspension. People will still put their 4d. letters into the pillarbox, and at some time there will be a collection. The mail will go to the Post Office, where it will be put on the facing table and separated into 4d. and 5d. mail. There are about 24 million second-class letters a day. If people continue to post second-class letters at this rate, it will be impossible to deal with the backlog.

I believe that the Postmaster-General is running away from the basic issue, which is the industrial dispute. We have been forced into this debate, and it is not on the issue about which we should be speaking. On Monday of this week the Opposition had a debate on the deterioration in the postal services. There was an emergency situation arising in the industry and time should have been spent on dealing with this aspect, the industrial dispute. No one on the other side of the House mentioned the industrial dispute and it was not debated. The debate was confined to the postal services, with which we have dealt at least three times during the last six weeks.

We are brought back to the Government's prices and incomes policy, and we must ask ourselves what that policy means when it is related to the causes of the dispute. If the Government have done anything in the last week, they have converted me from being in favour of the prices and incomes policy to opposing it. However, there is more rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, and I am sure that certain of my hon. Friends will be very grateful to the Government about that.

It is the Government who are breaking their own policy. It is the Union of Post Office Workers which is trying to get the Government to adhere to that policy. The wrong Minister will be replying to this debate. The Minister who should be here will not be. I understand that a poster on display in Hyde Park this morning said: For the first time, Barbara keeps mum". I am sure that that slogan will not be lost on my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

In the past, it has been a debating point of mine that a Conservative Government were so inept that they brought about a strike in an industry which had not known one in all its history. I cannot compare that with the record of Labour Governments any longer, because my right hon. Friend has brought about a similar situation, and I am ashamed that a Labour Postmaster-General should be responsible for it.

Earlier this evening, an hon. Member asked whether he was a free agent. There have been unpleasant leaks in the Press this week to the effect that my right hon. Friend has had his knuckles rapped for giving the impression that he was not entirely at one with those responsible for the prices and incomes policy. I do not know whether that is true. If one wants to discover what is going on these days, one has to rely on leaks to the newspapers. But is my right hon. Friend a free agent in the matter, or is he in the hands of a ventriloquist who is pulling the strings and telling him what to do? If there is someone behind the scenes, that person should be appearing at the Dispatch Box tonight to tell the House about the basic causes of the dispute.

This debate has revealed a sorry state of affairs within the set-up of the Post Office. It has come to open warfare with the union which is not militant. As I have said before, it has some of the youngest leaders in the trade union movement today. They are forward-looking people who are anxious to co-operate with the Ministers who are their opposite numbers. It is tragic that the present situation has been allowed to develop, but I prophesy that before the dispute finishes it will be the Postmaster-General who will burn his fingers.

There is an article in today's Guardian by Mr. Bevins, a former Postmaster-General. He gives an insight of what really happens in a Government Department. The present dispute may be advanced as one of the best reasons for making the Post Office a public corporation. When it happens, presumably this type of interference will no longer be possible. However one looks at the situation, it is a tragedy. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that should never have arisen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East spoke of the finance involved in having a strike as against conciliatory methods. Clearly, my right hon. Friend should go back and negotiate. The present system makes no sense. I hope that before the end of the week sanity will prevail.

8.55 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)

In the traditional fashion, I must begin by declaring an interest in the 4d. mail in that I am commercially associated with the direct mail order business.

The Postmaster-General's decision is an extremely serious one. If the figures which have been quoted are right and the overwhelming majority of letters are of the 4d. type, and if deliveries are to be suspended, the majority of letters entrusted to the Post Office will be delayed for an indefinite period. It is only right, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend should have sought further information about the authority by which this very important decision has been reached.

The tragedy of the situation is that it is totally unnecessary, but the fact remains that there has been a major breakdown in industrial relations. It is against that background that we should be judging the need for the steps which have been announced and the challenge which has followed from it.

It is true to say that increasingly people are becoming fed up with strikes. Almost every day one reads in the Press about a strike somewhere. That tends to result in the justice of the case of those who are striking being overshadowed by prejudice which has been built up as a result of previous strikes.

A good deal has been said about the enormous cost to the Post Office. There is no doubt that tremendous damage will be done to commercial interests and others by the action of the Postmaster-General. However, I hope that neither of those reasons will be advanced in judging the merits of the argument between the two sides, because I regard it as essential that settlements should be based upon justice and that there should be no attempt to buy off those who might otherwise create damage by striking.

Talking to people both in the House and outside it, I find that justice is thought to be on the side of the Post Office workers, and that the Postmaster-General is laying up for himself grave trouble, or others are laying it up for him, if he does not change his whole attitude to the situation.

The right hon. Gentleman claims that it is not within the competence of the Government, sticking to their incomes policy, to grant the 5 per cent. Judging by comparisons with 5 per cent. given to others, I cannot see how that case is made out. There is a view among the Post Office workers that they are not challenging the criteria and essential features of the incomes policy. If there is to be any arbitrating, I suggest that it is not on what should be paid but as to whether the settlement asked for is within or without the incomes policy as laid down in writing and presented to the House. The great lesson to be learned is that a compulsory incomes policy is bound to fail sooner or later. We are painfully and slowly learning that lesson. I only hope that we shall not have to pay still more to learn it even more effectively, and that the Postmaster-General will come to realise quickly that justice requires further consideration by him of the claims made by the workers in his Department.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford)

I associate myself with some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I agree that he should be a very good lawyer.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Shame.

Mr. Tuck

That is meant as a compliment to my hon. Friend.

An hon. Member opposite said that the Postmaster-General should have appealed to the public to use the mail less. But we have had an example of what appealing to the public does. The Prime Minister appealed to the public this year to do less private spending because of our imbalance of payments, and the result was a spending spree bigger than we have ever had. The shopkeepers were asked to keep their prices as low as possible, and the result has been an increase in prices all round, each one gaining an advantage at the expense of the other. The public is apparently careless of the national interest.

I agree with my right hon. Friend's suspension of the 4d. mail, but our real aid should be to end the appalling situation in which that is necessary. The union was asking for payment of a 5 per cent. increase without any ties. If that were given it would call off the strike and sit around a table and cost the new. Received Revision and OT.T.R.U. productivity agreements, and abide by the costing. The Government, wrongly, have refused its demands.

I have a suggestion which might get over the problem. I suggest that the union should instead call off the strike on an undertaking by the Post Office to pay the overseas telegraph operators a 5 per cent. increase linked with a productivity agreement, to be costed by the Post Office and the unions, the union undertaking at the same time to abide by the result of the costing. I am willing to bet anything that the union would accept such a compromise. Instead of a payment, it means an undertaking on both sides. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that suggestion and, having approved it, which I am sure that he will privately, to go back to his Cabinet colleagues, take their heads and knock them together and get them to agree to it too.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker (Acton)

I have some degree of sympathy with the Postmaster-General this evening because in the short time I have been in the House he has had to answer four censure debates, or what amount to censure debates, and three times he was really apologising for the faults and poor decisions of his predecessors. This time he is really answering for his own decision.

I think that it is generally agreed on both sides that the decision announced this afternoon was bad. It was a bad decision because it was a desperate one. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) put his finger on the matter. The root cause of the decision is a financial consideration. The Postmaster-General was faced with the whole of the postal services rapidly slipping into the red. The 4d. and 5d. mails were introduced to get them out of it. On Monday night we learnt that £4 million of the expected increase had gone down the drain because there had been a falling off in the use of the postal services. The Postmaster-General faced a financial crisis, and he has chosen a method of trying to preserve the financial take of the Post Office. That is the framework of the decision announced this afternoon. Like other hon. Members, I also think that it was introduced very badly, and that he should have his chapter and verse for it.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman probably has the powers. I am fairly satisfied that the Post Office Act, 1963, gave him them. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said that he was alarmed at the powers of the Postmaster-General. If he attended some of the sessions of the Standing Committee considering the Post Office Bill upstairs—a Committee on which no Liberal Member is sitting—he would be absolutely alarmed at the powers which we are giving to the new Post Office Corporation. They are infinitely greater than the powers which the Postmaster-General attempted to exercise this afternoon.

Mr. Bessell

I am sure that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) will allow me to make the point that no Liberal is sitting on the Committee because no Liberal has permission to sit on the Committee.

Mr. Baker

That does not stop the hon. Member from coming in to listen to our deliberations. I am sure that the Liberal Party would benefit if it listened to our deliberations in Committee.

The point I make is that the Postmaster-General, to my mind, has acted as he has because he was financially desperate. Why has he done it? In order to try to get a higher revenue at 5d. than at 4d. But the mail will still clog up if the overtime ban goes on. It will not matter whether a letter bears a 5d. or a 4d. stamp in this situation, because there will still be a mountain of mail.

I have great sympathy with the appeals from hon. Gentlemen opposite directed at the Postmaster-General to negotiate and to settle this strike as quickly as possible, because it is doing irreparable damage to the postal side of the Post Office as long as it continues. The difference between the two sides seems to be very narrow, almost minute, compared with the loss which the Post Office will make as a result of fall off in its business and the fact that it cannot cover its running costs.

I believe that the Postmaster-General should negotiate. But when he made his statement this afternoon, sitting on his left was the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. Clearly there is a division in the Government, although the Postmaster-General has denied it. I do not believe that he is a free agent. I believe that he would prefer to negotiate. He has the Ministerial responsibility for the Post Office and the Ministerial responsibility to make it pay. The Postmaster-General can see the prospects of making it pay slipping from his grasp. Yet he has virtually been told by the ventriloquists in the Cabinet, "Do not negotiate".

I do not know whether negotiations have started this evening. About an hour ago I noticed one of the Government Whips—not a junior Government Whip; no less a person than the Vice-Chamber lain of Her Majesty's Household—go over to the Box on my left and ask the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers to go out with him. I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, although I know it is a futile question because he would be the last to know whether negotiations had started—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. Is it not the custom and practice for hon. Members not to refer to what may or may not be happening in the galleries? The gallery above or below is in fact a gallery. Surely one does not refer to what is happening in the gallery.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

I think that the hon. Member is quite correct. Perhaps the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) will confine his remarks to what happens in the Chamber.

Mr. Baker

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely suggesting that perhaps there might be some hope as a result of what has been happening this evening, not in the gallery, but outside.

I stress again that the Postmaster-General should be free to negotiate a settlement.

This dispute has shown the travesty of having the sort of prices and incomes policy which the Government are trying to impose on the economy. We read of cases of settlements of industrial disputes well above the narrow margin about which we are talking—the tally clerks, for example. However, when it comes to a narrow margin the Cabinet decides that this is the sticking point and, as a result, we have a strike which is crippling the country. I hope that the Government will decide to change their attitude before the future of the postal side of the Post Office is irreparably damaged.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

This is the continuation of a type of industrial debate that has become almost an every-week occurrence. I regret the fact that all our major industrial disputes seem to finish up in debates on the Floor of the House when they can be resolved only within the industries concerned and between the employers and the trade unionists who represent the workers within those industries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) put the Post Office workers' case with a clarity and definition which all hon. Members accepted. He made clear the justice of their claim. The Postmaster-General has taken a decision which will have a major effect on our postal services. This decision has been taken following a one-day strike of Post Office workers and the implementation of an overtime ban. That is surely the answer to those people including my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet, who felt that they were dealing with a section of workers who were not important to the economy and could, therefore, be pushed aside.

I do not know about the two-tier postal system; I only know that a two-tier system of industrial relations is developing. Apparently the question is whether or not at a given moment an industry or a group of workers is important to the economy and our balance of payments. As the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers said, if they had been employed at Ford's or had been concerned in the Girling dispute negotiations would have been started immediately. In this case it has been impossible to get negotiations going. The conciliation department of the D.E.P. has not operated in its normal function, and I am worried about industrial relations.

My right hon. Friend has a very difficult job, and a hard cross to bear at the moment. What has been said about him personally by hon. Members opposite I entirely endorse. I realise the difficulty with which he is faced at the moment. But, as he said with great clarity, he was bound by the Government's prices and incomes policy. What is that policy? That is the key question. It is not the 5 per cent. that is in dispute; it is the demand for a productivity agreement in respect of the present supplement for telephonists. Collective bargaining is collective bargaining between two sides of industry. The copper-bottomed agreement that my right hon. Friend talked about is not one to be decided by the Government, the D.E.P. or the Cabinet and then put on the table before the Post Office workers, for them to be told, "Take it or leave it." I realise the anxiety of the Government to arrive at productivity agreements but there cannot be a norm in respect of any productivity agreement before such an agreement has been reached.

The Post Office workers put their case with great clarity. They showed the differential that exists between telephonists and comparable workers outside and among the rest of the Civil Service, and the response of the members of the Union of Post Office Workers—not a union that goes on strike lightly—has been demonstrated today by the action they have taken in support of their colleagues, quite voluntarily, because they recognise the perpetration of an injustice. Realising this, we appreciate the magnitude of the task that faces us.

How are we to get out of this problem? I shall not refer to people who are not here, because that is wrong, but there are people not 1,000 miles away, other Ministers for example, who could be brought together quickly for negotiations to start. At the end of the day, as in all industrial disputes, negotiations will have to take place; they will have to get around the table and the case of the Post Office workers will have to be made. Are we to allow disruption? The Government have made a major error if they think that the Post Office workers are not of industrial importance to the economy and the baalnce of payments. If the postal services are stopped, disruption is created in a vital industry upon which so many others depend for their development and even survival. The case of the union is unanswerable and the Government must come to negotiation. My right hon. Friend must tell the First Secretary of State that this will not do, that she must negotiate, and the Government must not prejudge these issues.

This is where the prices and incomes policy has led us in three years. If after tonight's debate my right hon. Friend can give a lead by saying that he is prepared to start negotiations and accept the reasonable proposals put before him, I can see a settlement which will save the country and the taxpayers a great deal of money, and not only inconvenience but also good will within the industry. After all, the industry handles over 24 million letters a day. The Government might as well admit that they have made a mistake and are prepared to negotiate. Only on those terms will there be a settlement. The Post Office workers see the justice of their case, and in a free and democratic society they are fighting for it by taking effective action. The Government should recognise the justice of that case and go some way to meet them.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman (Leicester, South-West)

I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), although I will not digress into industrial relations.

The question that this debate raises is the powers which the right hon. Gentleman has purported to exercise, and we wait with interest to hear what they are and what he is trying to do. It has become apparent tonight that there is some doubt whether he is stopping the 4d. post or suspending it. It is difficult to see how he can separate the 4d. post from the 5d., which is a far greater problem than just letting them all go. Might not the solution be to let all mail go through at 4d. to avoid the great delay of sorting, since the mail will have to be collected whichever stamp it bears? He may well find that it is quicker to have a 4d. stamp and let everything go through with the same priority.

The consequence of this stoppage on our industrial life will be severe. It is applying a tourniquet to the lifeblood of industry. If the 4d. post cannot get through, there will be serious consequences for commerce.

It has been said that everything should go through from now on with a 5d. stamp; that we should be persuaded to put on the extra 1d. so that instead of having the 32 per cent. of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke going through by first-class mail, 100 per cent. will go through bearing 5d. stamps, with the result that the problem will be just the same as if he had adopted my suggestion of allowing everything to go through the 4d. mail. We see the inherent danger in a monopoly of this sort. We have been discussing this upstairs on the Post Office Bill.

The person who should be in the dock tonight is not the Postmaster-General but the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity because her policies are at the root of the trouble. She has applied them illogically, often to the weaker and better behaved sections of the community while allowing the stronger, more noisy and often less well behaved sections to escape her clutches.

This debate is occurring on a day when we have heard that there has been wage inflation of 6f per cent. in the last 12 months. Bearing that in mind, it does not seem unreasonable that the Post Office workers should be asking for 5 per cent., plus a 2 per cent. productivity award. That does not seem out of line with the sort of wage inflation we have been experiencing. As for the Secretary of State's policies, there is a great deal in the economy that is out of line with her thinking. The Government have a duty to set an example in these matters. As their policies have produced the consequences which we are witnessing, it is obvious that they have been desperately wrong.

This dispute is comparatively small, particularly in terms of the amount involved. We are dealing with a body of responsible workers. Hon. Members on both sides have great respect for Post Office employees. They are our friends from the moment they bring our mail to the time when they help us with our telephone calls. They represent a section of the community with whom it should not be difficult to reach agreement.

The Postmaster-General is a reasonable man and the difficulties which he faces are not of his choosing. We have reached a point of crisis, of economic loss and of great personal inconvenience as a result of following Government policies which are misconceived and will bring further economic harm to the economy.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan (Howden)

This is a surprising debate which none of us expected. I was astonished earlier when the Postmaster-General did not know the answer to the question posed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), particularly as we were debating this matter only a short time ago. However, I am not here to chastise the right hon. Gentleman on his ignorance. This has been delicately and effectively done by my right hon. and learned Friend, and I do not expect that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be cracking open a bottle of champagne on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf tonight.

I will not argue at length about the legal side of this question. I will not go into whether the right hon. Gentleman is relying on Section 2 of the Post Office Act, 1953, which says that he may … collect, receive, forward, convey and deliver in such a manner as he thinks expedient … which is a daunting prospect, or whether he is depending on the Regulation which we debated on 4th November. Whichever it may be, one thing is absolutely clear; that our attitude in that Prayer debate on 4th November was absolutely right. We thought that this was a dangerous power to put in the hands of a Postmaster-General.

On that occasion hon. Members on both sides tried to think of the sort of occasions on which such a power might be used. The right hon. Gentleman assured us that before the two-tier system a similar power had existed in respect of the old second-class post—printed matter, newspapers and so on—and that Tory Ministers had had such a power in their day.

However, we were speaking in different conditions. During the previous few weeks before 4th November we had been suffering all the torment of the early days of the two-tier post, and at that time we were told time and again by the right hon. Gentleman that there would be no delay or deferring of the post while, at the same time, we were seeing all around us the post being deferred. On that occasion, at the end of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was issuing two instructions, both of which would prohibit delay and deferment of the post. We were obviously being very cautious that night.

The legal side could not have been better expressed than it was by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East. I presume, therefore, that this power in the hands of the Postmaster-General must be a legal one. I should have thought, however, that necessity had to be proved; that we must decide whether it is a necessary power; and when we consider the question of necessity, we must ask what "necessity" means.

When one arrives at a position in which the Postmaster-General has made a major blunder, one which any normal person in normal circumstances would not have done in his position, and when this has caused the post to be delayed, one must ask whether or not the right hon. Gentleman is acting within his powers. The hon. Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson) asked us not to debate the two-tier system any longer. Important though the strike is—and I appreciate his preoccupation with it—we are tonight talking about powers and also about the customers of the Post Office. They matter, for the customers are every man, woman and even child in Britain. These other matters must, therefore, be in our minds as well as the serious problem which is overhanging all our thoughts.

On the two-tier system, the chaos, delay and deferment which under the right hon Gentleman's powers occurred in the first couple of months of the two-tier system were utterly predictable and, as most predictable things are, utterly avoidable. Yet he was in a position to say that he was perfectly within his rights to delay letters and parcels, and mail was delayed considerably.

In our debate of 4th November I said to the Postmaster-General: No one has emphasised the fact that the root cause of all these troubles—the thing that made them absolutely inevitable—was the decision to combine the introduction of the two-tier system with a rise in charges. Once that decision was taken, a calamity was bound to occur."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 602.] I will not go into great depth, although I could, as to why the chaos we saw then was absolutely inevitable. On that night the Postmaster-General appeared to think that I was wrong. This week, on 27th January, he said: It was a pity that the two-tier system came into operation at the same time as a tariff increase. This caused a great deal of confusion. It would have been so much more satisfactory if it had been possible to have a straight price increase and then six or nine months later to have introduced the two-tier system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 1026.] This is exactly what we have been saying, when we were told that we were using the postal service as a political football. But anyone, a businessman, or anyone not very bright, could see that this was inevitable. When there is chaos like this in sight, delay in the post is absolutely predictable, in which case instead of saying "You benefit we benefit, you lucky people" and all the propaganda we got then, the right hon. Gentleman should have been warning us that this was about to happen. If the Postmaster-General had warned the people, and I say this absolutely seriously—[Interruption.]— hon. Gentlemen may not like to hear this, but it is extremely serious. If on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman had turned to the people and said "I am sorry, but we are starting a new system; it will be chaotic for two months", which is what it was, he would be in a very much better position. He would have the trust of the people a great deal more than he has today. That is what he is short of now. What I venture to say, and I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, is that he is short of trust. People do not trust him, not because he is dishonest. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying these very words.

Mr. Dobson

Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to persuade the House that the chaos that he has referred to in general terms, which is his party's point, is the same as the chaos which now exists because of this strike?

Mr. Bryan

That is a very unlikely argument for me to put. I am about to come to that. What I am saying is that once again this was absolutely predictable, but we do not know whether it is avoidable. This strike has not popped out of the blue two days ago. News of the possibility of a strike began on 18th November, when the Postmaster-General saw the telegraphic workers.

This was a personal warning to the right hon. Gentleman. One could hardly have had longer notice of the trouble. After seven weeks' warning, there was the strike ballot on 4th January. Still the public were given no sort of warning as to what might happen, and yet it was a very big thing likely to happen. Never before has there been a strike of postal and telegraphic workers. It was very hard to see the size that this might get to, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East has just said. We were in sight of something very serious. Were the public given any warning as to what might happen? Perhaps it was a long way off, but the strike ballot took place on 4th January, 19 days ago. The decision to strike was finally taken on 11th January, and the telegraphists were due to strike on 20th January. Everyone in the trade union world, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know more about that than I do, must have known that this move had the sympathy of the rest of the Post Office workers. Something very big was in sight. Yet there was still no warning or guidance. Then, on 22nd January, the Executive of the U.P.W. met to discuss the extension of the strike.

Last Friday we had the decision that all overtime would cease as from Sunday. The Postmaster-General told us in Monday's debate that one-fifth of all Post Office work was overtime. This was a tremendous blow, but again no warning was given to the public. Finally, there was the total stoppage on Thursday for towns with a total population of over 250,000. With all these warnings, it was obvious that a very great danger of the sort of thing from which we are now suffering existed. The Postmaster-General must have known of the sort of position, even of the form it was to take. Despite this what happened? Last Friday we were told that the parcel post would cease three days later—on the Monday morning. This Thursday afternoon we were told that the 4d. post would cease next day. This is absolutely intolerable.

I cannot tell the House now—nor can anybody else—whether this is absolutely necessary today, because we do not know what would have happened if warnings had started to come out 12 days ago. We should probably have started posting; certainly businesses would have started making their postings and gauging them out as best they could. The Government would at least then have been paying the population the compliment of taking it into their confidence and saying, "Take what action on your own personal account and in your own personal lives you want to. This is what looks like happening". Instead of that, within a day we are suddenly told, "We are not quite sure what will happen to the stuff which has already been posted." I cannot see any argument that the Postmaster-General could possibly advance to say that the people could not have had a longer warning than they have had.

I should like the Postmaster-General to clear up the point I made briefly this afternoon on the question of the country post. During the arguments on the two-tier post one thing that worried people very greatly was the fact that the country post was kept back. Am I to understand that a letter posted in Malton to Pickering on the 4d. post is to be held back? Is it affected by the fact that Leeds, Sheffield and other large towns are hit by the strike?

The point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East about the cost to the Post Office was an excellent one. The hon. Gentleman knows these figures. I do not doubt that they are accurate. A figure we cannot possibly get is the cost to the country. A short time ago I went round a very large mail order firm—Gratton Warehouses—and saw the mountains of parcels there going through the parcel post. I wonder what sort of chaos happens there when at one business day's notice the firm is suddenly told that there is no parcels post. Multiply that chaos 1,000 times a day and we know what is happening all over the country.

This evening I said to a constituent of mine who happened to be down here—I do not get many constituents down from Yorkshire—"What effect will this ruling about the 4d. post have?" She said, "I do not know. One is so beaten down by the Post Office nowadays that it really can do anything to you." This may not be the perfect way to express the attitude to the Post Office, but it is a ghastly indictment, and, I believe, a true one. A moment or two ago I stressed the question which I think is the most important of all, the lack of trust.

Mr. Orme

Would the hon. Gentleman now tell us where his party stands in relation to the justifiable claim that the Post Office workers have?

Mr. Bryan

If a Front Bench spokesman on this side were to come down in open debate at this delicate moment on one side or the other—[Interruption.]— I ask the Postmaster-General to confirm that I am right in this—he would be accused of very great irresponsibility; and whoever accused us would be right.

Over the last nine months we have had a number of debates on the Post Office. There have been complaints about the number of debates that we have had on the Post Office. Time and again we have not made our indictment of the Postmaster-General because we have been in the awkward position of there having been three Postmasters-General in such a short time—within a year—and the responsibility for the most recent calamity has normally been split between the three.

Tonight I do indict the Postmaster-General, not primarily because of his ignorance of the Act tonight, not primarily even because he has shown twice how to make the worst of every situation. I return to the point I made a few moments ago about the lack of trust. Over the past nine months the Postmaster-General has generated mistrust in this country by time and again telling people not what is happening around them but telling them lies—I must not say lies, must I?—by giving them misleading statements. Because of this lack of trust and his inability to safeguard the legitimate rights and expectations of the entire nation who use his services, I invite the Postmaster-General now to resign.

9.40 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse)

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on securing a debate on the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the suspension by executive action under no identified powers of the second-class postal service". I congratulate him on that achievement, and I congratulate him also on being almost the only Member in the debate so far to talk to the terms of that Adjournment.

The course of the debate has demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt the thinness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case. But it has been a useful debate, and many of the contributions were in the best tradition of the House on these occasions. I can remember similar occasions in the past when Mr. Speaker had allowed an Adjournment debate under Standing Order No. 9. I remember one which I myself initiated and to which the present Leader of the Opposition had to reply. They were really significant occasions. This is valuable right which the House of Commons has. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not only right in what he did, but he was wise to pursue the point if he had any doubt about it. It has been a valuable debate because there have been several useful and sincere speeches made from both sides.

Before dealing with the legal question, which is still in some dispute, and answering the points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put to me, I wish to say at the outset that there is no sadder Member of the House than the Postmaster-General tonight. I did not seek a dispute in the Post Office. I am saddened by this dispute. I bitterly regret that it took place. Every day that it continues, and every day that the overtime ban continues, is as wounding to me as to any member of the Union of Post Office Workers taking part in the strike, however reluctantly.

I bitterly regret this dispute because I believe that it was unnecessary. I believe that it could have been avoided. I am very disappointed that we have had not only a strike by overseas telegraphists last week but the escalation of the dispute this week involving tens of thousands of Post Office workers who have no direct connection with the particular narrow dispute affecting the telegraphists except—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

They are showing solidarity.

Mr. Stonehouse

—except that they belong to the same union and, as my hon. Friend says in his intervention from a sitting position, they are displaying solidarity. I repeat that I am saddened by these events. I have no need to remind the House that I grew up in a Post Office family. Most of the members of my family were working for the G.P.O. My father spent his working lifetime in the engineering department of the Post Office and was a branch secretary of the P.O.E.U. I have Post Office trade unionism in my blood, in a way, and I am more than deeply emotionally involved in Post Office affairs as a result of this background of experience.

Many contributions have been concerned with the operational necessity for this ban. I want to emphasise, as I did in answer to questions this afternoon, that the suspension of the second-class mail is dictated by operational necessity in the Post Office. We did not impose the suspension as any counter in the dispute which we now have with the union. We did not bring in the suspension and some of the other restrictions in order to show that we are taking a resolute line in opposition to some of the things which have been put to us in connection with the dispute. We have introduced the suspension on purely operational grounds in order to protect the fully-paid, first-class mails which we believe it is absolutely essential and our duty to get through as quickly as possible.

Hon. Members have asked a number of detailed questions. Before answering them, I should like to give a report on the current situation as we have seen it today. If mail is to be kept moving, it must be flowing freely. If there are hold-ups in the mail, such is the cumulative effect that, before very long, there is a complete snarl-up and bags of mail accumulate at railway stations and in vans and trains and so on, and there is nowhere to store incoming bags without filling up the working parts of our buildings.

We have this situation to deal with at Christmas time, but we can deal with this type of problem at Christmas by massive drafts of extra staff and by the many extra buildings which are brought into use and by the 100 per cent. cooperation of our regular staff. None of these aids is available to us in the circumstances of the strike and the ban on extra hours.

Sir D. Glover rose—

Mr. Stonehouse

The situation today is extremely serious. There is already a backlog of about two days' work at Birmingham and some of the larger London branches have on hand the equivalent of one day's work or more. Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Bristol all have heavy backlogs. At none of these centres was any work possible today and all the staff were on strike. Tomorrow, therefore, all today's postings in the major cities will be piled up on top of the backlog I have mentioned. In addition, the postings in the smaller centres, where work continued today, will pour into the towns.

If we had not taken drastic action today to cut down the amount of mail posted from tomorrow, the postal services could soon have come to a complete standstill in the major towns—by the end of the week—and no mail, urgent or non-urgent, would have been flowing through the system. If I had allowed the 4d. post to continue, and that is 70 per cent. of the mail, I should have been deliberately inviting chaos. I have a duty to the public to maintain a letter service. Hon. Members have been referring to the obligations put upon the Postmaster-General by the Acts. I should be running away from those obligations if I allowed the snarl up to take place and no mail to come through.

The Union of Post Office Workers has had a great response to its call for a ban on overtime and for the one-day strike today. There is no doubt that it has been determined to achieve the chaos in the mails which was predicted by the General Secretary at the beginning of the week. Hon. Members ask why we did not appeal to members of the public for their co-operation. At the beginning of this week, when it was clear that the overtime ban would take place from Monday, I appealed to the public to co-operate by posting only what was urgent. But, as the House has heard, this appeal has not been as successful as we should have liked. The mail has built up, and we can no longer give a guarantee of service for the second-class mail. It was, therefore, my duty to impose the suspension which I announced today to prevent a complete snarl up.

Questions have been asked about the detail of the suspension. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell)—and I thank him for the courtesy shown in his speech—asked when the 4d. mail in the pipeline would be delivered. We undertake to give the best possible service to that mail. We shall not unnecessarily hold it back. But we shall give priority service to the 5d. mail which is already in our hands and feed the existing 4d. mail into the streams as soon as it becomes operationally possible so to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked why we had to suspend the 4d. mail. We had to do so because by the ban on overtime work, which, as I said on Monday, is equivalent to one-fifth of the postal work done, and today's one-day strike and the stoppages predicted on Sundays, we are building up to about three days' loss of work in the week. Therefore, we must take account of the fact that we do not have enough available capacity, manpower and hours to deal with all the first-class mail which is coming through plus the backlog.

It is undoubtedly correct that more members of the public will now decide that some of the mail which they would have posted by 4d. mail is sufficiently important to post by 5d. mail. We will accept that. All the mail is equal in priority as far as we are concerned. It is 5d. mail and we will do our best to deliver it. We will give the public the opportunity to post this mail. But we want people to be well aware that we wish to dissuade them from posting non-urgent mail, such as advertising circulars, which could well be put off until this dispute is finished.

Mr. English

My right hon. Friend answered a question which I did not put. I did not ask why the suspension was necessary. I asked why he did not suspend the first-class mail instead of the second-class mail.

Mr. Storehouse

It would have been wrong to imply that we would give priority to the second-class mail. It would have been encouraged all those houses which send out circulars to continue to do so, and this would have been wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson), who is very well informed in these matters, raised a number of questions. I think that I have dealt with them. We shall be clearing the 4d. mail from the boxes, but we will put it on one side until we can deal with it.

The key point which was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, and which was dealt with only in his speech—I do not think that anyone else dealt with it—concerned my legal powers. I notice that in certain sections of the Press it is being suggested that I gave an evasive reply to questions this afternoon. Let me repeat what I said—

Mr. Bryan

The right hon. Gentleman did not know.

Mr. Stonehouse

I knew the answer. I assure the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) that I was fully aware of my powers and fully appreciative of the way in which the Post Office does business. I said this to the Leader of the Opposition in answer to his question: I am advised that I am fully entitled to impose temporary restrictions in the light of the exceptional circumstances with which we have to deal. This is an operational restriction. It is not a complete ban on mails. If it were a complete ban on mails it could possibly be construed as being outwith my powers; but it is not a complete ban … The Post Office has been given the power to operate postal services, and my current powers are contained in the Post Office Act, 1953. The provisions of this Act have a long history, but at no time in this long history has there been any specific obligation placed on the Post Office to operate any particular service in any particular way. The powers are given to me under Section 2 of the Post Office Act of 1953, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to in his excellent speech. He has saved me the necessity of quoting that Section. I ask the House to note that these are powers which are set out in the Act, not obligations. Legally it remains entirely within the discretion of the Post Office how it operates its services.

Hon. Members have referred to the Regulations, and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East referred to the debates last November. I well remember those debates on the Regulations, but the Regulations simply fix the charges and conditions for the services which the Postmaster-General decides to run.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen) rose—

Mr. Stonehouse

No specific legal authority is required, therefore, for any suspension of a business which I am running entirely within my own discretion and not as a result—[Interruption.]—1 would ask right hon. and hon. and learned Gentlemen who are here tonight to confirm that this is the legal position. I am not saying that I am completely without responsibility to this House. Of course that is not the case. I am defining the legal position, which is the question I was asked this afternoon, and the House is entitled to have the reply to that.

The Post Office does not have a statutory obligation to operate a second-class service or a parcels service. It therefore follows that it is not necessary to plead any statutory power to suspend it. That is the answer to the various questions that have been asked during the debate.

One final point. In 1962 and 1964 the Conservative Governments of the day had to suspend the parcels and printed paper services. I will not burden the House with quotations from Mr. Reginald Bevins which are to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 13th July, 1964, c. 844. If it were illegal for me to operate the suspension, it was illegal for the Postmaster of that day.

There has been no case made out tonight, and I therefore invite the House to throw away the suggestions which have been made.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 187.

Division No. 53.]	AYES	[10.0 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Goodhart, Philip	Onslow, Cranley
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Goodhew, Victor	Orr-Ewing, Sir lan
Astor, John	Gresham Cooke, R.	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Gurden, Harold	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Balniel, Lord	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Pardoe, John
Barber, Bt. Hn. Anthony	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Percival, lan
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Peyton, John
Bessell, Peter	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Biffen, John	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Prior, J. M. L.
Biggs-Davison, John	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Pym, Francis
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Hawkins, Paul	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Blaker, Peter	Hay, John	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Body, Richard	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bossom, Sir Clive	Heseltine, Michael	Ridsda'e, Julian
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Higgins, Terence L.	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Braine, Bernard	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hordern, Peter	Russell, Sir Reginald
Bryan, Paul	Hornby, Richard	Scott, Nicholas
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Howell, David (Guildford)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Sharples, Richard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Iremonger, T. L.	Silvester, Frederick
Chichester-Clark, R.	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Sinclair, Sir George
Clark, Henry	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Corfield, F. V.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Costain, A. P.	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Stodart, Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Kershaw, Anthony	Summers, Sir Spencer
Crouch, David	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Tapsell, Peter
Crowder, F. P.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow. Cathcart)
Dance, James	Longden, Gilbert	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Lubbock, Eric	Teeling, Sir William
Dean, Paul	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	MacArthur, lan	Thorpe, Rt Hn Jeremy
Dodds-parker, Douglas	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Doughty, Charles	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	McNair-Wilson. Patrick	Waddington, David
Eden, Sir John	Marten, Neil	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Emery, Peter	Maude, Angus	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Errington, Sir Eric	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Walters, Dennis
Farr, John	Miscampbell, Norman	Ward, Dame Irene
Fisher, Nigel	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Weatherill, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Monro, Hector	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Fortescue, Tim	More, Jasper	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Foster, Sir John	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Worsley, Marcus
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Wright, Esmond
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Murton, Oscar	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Glover, Sir Douglas	Neave, Airey	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
	Nott, John	Mr. Anthony Grant.
Anderson, Donald	Haseldine, Norman	Oakes, Gordon
Archer, Peter	Hattersley, Roy	Ogden, Eric
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Hazell, Bert	O'Malley, Brian
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Heffer, Eric S.	Oram, Albert E.
Barnett, Joel	Hilton, W. S.	Orme, Stanley
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Hobden, Dennis	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Hooley, Frank	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Bidwell, Sydney	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Bishop, E. S.	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Palmer, Arthur
Booth, Albert	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Howie, W.	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Boyden, James	Hoy, James	Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Huckfield, Leslle	Pavitt, Laurence
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Hunter, Adam	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Rankin, John
Cant, R. B.	Jackson, Colin (B'house & Spenb'gh)	Rees, Meriyn
Carmichael, Neil	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Richard, Ivor
Coe, Denis	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Concannon, J. D.	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Judd, Frank	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dalyell, Tam	Kelley, Richard	Roebuck, Roy
Darling, Rt Hn. George	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Lawson, George	Sheldon, Robert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Delargy, Hugh	Lee, John (Reading)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dewar, Donald	Lever, Harold M. (Cheetham)	Skeffington, Arthur
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Slater, Joseph
Dickens, James	Lipton, Marcus	Small, William
Dobson, Ray	Lomas, Kenneth	Snow, Julian
Dunnett, Jack	Luard, Evan	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Taverne, Dick
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	McCann, John	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Eadie, Alex	MacColl, James	Thomson, Rt. Hn, George
Ellis, John	MacDermot, Niall	Tinn, James
English, Michael	Macdonaid, A. H.	Tuck, Raphael
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Urwin, T. W.
Faulds, Andrew	Mackie, John	Wainwright, Edwin (Derne Valley)
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)	Mackintosh, John P.	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Foley, Maurice	Maclennan, Robert	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Foot, Rt. Hn Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wallace, George
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Watkins David (consett)
Forrester, Jonn	MacPherson, Malcoim	Weitzman, David
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Wellbeloved, James
Freeson, Reginald	Marks, Kenneth	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gardner, Tony	Marquand, David	White, Mrs. Eirene
Ginsburg, David	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Whitlock, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Mendelson, John	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Millan, Bruce	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Moonman, Eric	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hamilton. William (Fife, W.)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Winnick, David
Hamling, William	Moyle, Roland	Woof, Robert
Harper, Joseph	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Murray, Albert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
	Newens, Stan	Mr. Neil McBride and
	Norwood, Christopher	Mr. Ernest G. Perry.