HC Deb 14 July 1969 vol 787 cc33-6
Mr. Bryan (by Private Notice)

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the strike of the members of the Post Office Engineering Union.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse)

The Post Office Engineering Union has made a claim for a 10 per cent. increase in pay from 1st July, 1969, for the grades it represents, numbering about 108,000, together with certain supplementary claims which, if met in full, would cost about £19 to £20 million a year. The claim is said to take account of wage movements in outside industry plus a share in the estimated staff savings arising from changes in working practices.

Following discussions with the union last week, I made an improved offer of an increase of 5 per cent. which, together with concession of certain of the subsidiary claims would absorb virtually the whole of the additional productivity sayings—£9 to £10 million—expected to be achieved in the current financial year. Subsequently, I proposed to the union that it should enter into an undertaking about long-term productivity, in return for which I offered an increase of 7 per cent. I feel that this offer provides a basis for continuing the productivity improvements which have hitherto been of considerable benefit to both the Post Office and to the union members.

I regret to say that the union did not find either of these proposals acceptable, nor was it prepared, in spite of the negotiations which were proceeding, to call off the strike action in Northern Ireland on Friday and in the rest of the country today.

Preliminary reports confirm that the local and trunk services are continuing to operate, although at somewhat reduced efficiency because of faults which have developed, and have not been cleared. The union is carrying out its undertaking to attend to emergency faults affecting safety of life. The Post Office Tower is closed to the public, but the microwave links are in service. The full effect on television services remains uncertain.

I greatly regret any inconvenience to the public caused by this action.

Mr. Bryan

The House will be relieved to hear that the inconveniences caused so far are not very great, but we should like to hear what the Minister intends to do about the future situation, which can get a lot worse. The fact that the union has been without a strike throughout its whole history of 87 years adds weight to the case in the eyes of the public.

Leaving aside the merits of the case, would the Minister answer the allegation that the Post Office has been unduly long and laggardly in its negotiations, which have now been going on for eight months, and that no effort was made until the eve of the conference of the union, which was not a good time to make an offer? Since the union has said that its contest is with the Post Office and not with the public, will the Minister ask the secretary of the union whether he can spare one engineer to throw a switch in the Post Office tower so as to bring back television to many millions of people in London tonight?

Mr. Stonehouse

It would be advisable not to be drawn on the last request so as not to exacerbate the situation. I am sure that the general secretary of the union will be made aware of the request which has been made.

I very much hope that the union will now see the fair and reasonable proposal which I have made to it for a 7 per cent. increase related to a long-term productivity agreement, which will be extremely valuable to the union. I hope that the union will appreciate it as a fair proposal and seek to see me to continue negotiations upon it.

As for the length of time in negotiation, it must be borne in mind that in the Civil Service there is a retrospective rule and that it is possible for negotiations to continue for six months after 1st July without the members losing any of the award. I should have thought that there was more than enough time for the union to have continued negotiations without resorting to a strike.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Could not this dispute be speedily resolved if the Government were to take action as quickly and as generously in this respect as they have done in regard to the pay of higher civil servants, the chairmen of the nationalised industries, and Mr. Aubrey Jones, who has been given a two-year contract at £15,000? Will the Minister not deal with this claim on the same basis?

Mr. Stonehouse

I am sure that there will be some hon. Members who feel that we should just give in to any claim which is put forward. But I do not feel that would be advisable, because some hon. Gentlemen would then complain because Post Office charges would have to be put up to meet it.

What we are doing in responding to this claim is agreeing to pay out to the union all of the productivity savings we expect to make in the next year. If we were to go beyond that by any significant amount the only way in which the Post Office could make up the difference would be by increasing charges to the public. If that were to happen, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would be the first to complain.

Mr. Ian Gilmour

Has the Postmaster-General not shilly-shallied by making a number of different confusing and inconsistent offers? Has he not blundered by destroying the faith of the union in productivity bargaining?

Mr. Stonehouse

I do not accept that. At the beginning of the negotiations we put forward an offer associated with productivity of 4 per cent. The union members, being civil servants, were also entitled—we put this to them—to accept a 3½ per cent. increase, which assumed their continuing co-operation. It is not true to say that it was completely without any qualification attached to it. I believe that there was no inconsistency between these two proposals.

Mr. Orme

Would my right hon. Friend not recognise that the Government's attitude brings into question their sincerity about productivity bargaining? Is it not a fact that this union has saved over £66 million during the last four years of productivity bargaining and is entitled to an increase on that basis without looking to the forward-planning and strings which may be attached by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Stonehouse

Many of the productivity savings achieved are as a result of greater investment and improvements in technology. This must be borne in mind. We must also expect employers and the public generally to obtain some benefit from these improvements. They cannot all be paid out all the time, otherwise there is no return to the economy as a whole.

As for the last four years, we estimate productivity savings of about £66 million, but in 3¼ years the increases in pay the union grades have enjoyed, including productivity savings, were about £52 million. I do not think that they have done at all badly.

Mr. Stratton Mills

The Minister has not answered my hon. Friend's question, in which he inquired what the Minister intended to do if the strikes recurred in other weeks with great inconvenience to the public.

Mr. Stonehouse

I have answered that question. I said that I hoped the union would now respond to the fair proposal I put forward and will now ask to see me to continue the negotiations. I hope that we will say nothing in this House to exacerbate this situation.