HC Deb 25 November 1970 vol 807 cc415-27
Mr. Richard

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement upon the dismissal of the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway)

Having concluded that it is in the best interests of the Post Office and public, I have asked Lord Hall to relinquish his post as Chairman of the Corporation. He has agreed to do so. There have been no major disagreements between Lord Hall and myself on matters of policy. Lord Hall is leaving forthwith and will receive compensation for loss of office. Mr. Ryland, Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of the Post Office, will act as Chairman pending the appointment of a successor to Lord Hall.

Mr. Richard

Is the Minister aware that this dismissal and the extraordinarily ham-fisted way in which it has been announced are bound to have a serious effect on morale inside the Post Office? Does he know, for example, that both the major Post Office unions have condemned his action? Is he also aware that there are still strong rumours of major political differences in principle existing between himself and the former Chairman, for example, over the possible closing down of the Giro, over amending the Post Office Act so as to remove from the Post Office the right to manufacture its own equipment and over the possible sale to private enterprise of some of the more profitable parts of the Post Office activities?

Is the Minister further aware that there is widespread belief that the truth behind this dismissal is that he and the Government want a more pliant and politically more acceptable Chairman than Lord Hall proved to be?

I ask the Minister three specific points. First, have there been serious political differences between him and Lord Hall? Secondly, will he give an assurance that he does not intend either to close down the Giro or to remove its management from the Post Office? Thirdly, will he give an assurance that the Government do not intend to amend or repeal the Post Office Act so as to remove the right of manufacture from the Post Office?

Finally, if the Government are proposing to sell off some of the more profitable parts of the Post Office activity, and if this piece of political skullduggery is to be repeated in other nationalised industries, the Government can expect and will get the sustained and bitter opposition of this side of the House and the whole of the Labour movement.

Mr. Chataway

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of policy questions in relation to the Post Office. I have made it clear that there were no policy disagreements, and I would not come down to the House and say that there were no major policy disagreements if that were not the truth. I have made it absolutely clear that this decision has been taken solely because I believe that it is in the interests of the Post Office and the public.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We will get along much better by parliamentary questions and not by noise.

Mr. Richard

If the right hon. Gentleman has come to that conclusion in the public interest, why?

Mr. Chataway

Neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else will lead me to make critical remarks about the qualities of leadership of the former Chairman of the Post Office. I do not believe that would set a happy precedent. I have made it absolutely clear that the decision has been taken in the interests of the management of the Post Office.

Mr. Mawby

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the change which was brought about by the Post Office Act meant that there could no longer be a political leader of one of the largest commercial organisations in the country? Does he agree that the Minister should be able to decide whether the incumbent is capable of managing the largest commercial organisation in this country and should have freedom to make this decision without it being alleged that it is made for political reasons?

Mr. Chataway

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly do not regard this as a political appointment. As my hon. Friend says. I have a responsibility under the Post Office Act in relation to the efficient management of the Post Office, and it is in the discharge of that duty that I have come to the conclusion I have.

Mr. Faulds

He could not run a whelk-stall!

Mr. Harold Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would not come to the House and say whatever it was he was not going to say. Is he aware that it was reported this morning, presumably on information from his Department, that he would not come to the House at all, that he was due to be in the North today, and that this announcement would have been put out by the Post Office without the Minister reporting to the House had it not been for my hon. Friend's Private Notice Question? Will he say whether or not that is so?

Secondly, will he say what canvassing has been undertaken by the Government, either within the Post Office Board or within management, and, if there was canvassing to reach this conclusion, what consultation he had with the trade unions concerned?

Mr. Chataway

We do not in this Administration canvass the opinion of employees of a nationalised industry—[Interruption.]—before coming to a decision about the Chairman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must here listen to what we disagree with.

Mr. Chataway

—before coming to a decision which is solely that of the Minister concerned. In reply to the Prime Minister's first question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I should have said the Leader of the Opposition. There was firmly fixed in my mind the instance of the right hon. Lady in similar circumstances and the way in which that matter was conducted at the time the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister. In reply to the first question, what I made clear was that I would not come to the House to make a statement to the effect that there had not been major policy differences if that were not the truth.

Mr. Marples

May I ask my right hon. Friend to spell out what he calls—

Mr. Faulds

Go and judge the Miss World competition.

Mr. Marples

If only you shaved, you would be much better. Leaving aside any political differences—

Mr. Orme

You must be kidding!

Mr. Marples

—may I ask my right hon. Friend to say what he considers are his reasons for saying that they are in the best interests?

Mr. Chataway

I have made it clear that I have a responsibility to the House for the efficient management of the postal services. It is in the belief that it is essential to have a change in the management of the Post Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] My right hon. Friend is inviting me to make criticisms of individuals.

Mr. Marples

No.

Mr. Chataway

—and that I do not feel inclined to do. It would, of course, be easy enough for any Minister in these circumstances to do that, but I believe it would be an unhappy precedent and that it would be unfair for me to do so. I have made it absolutely clear that in my view this change is necessary for the efficent management of the postal services.

Mr. Stonehouse

Is it not clear that the Minister has been less than fair and frank with the House? Is it not a fact that the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation was showing obstinate disagreement with the Minister in the right hon. Gentleman's intention to close down the Giro service? [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a specific assurance that he does not intend to close down Giro?

Sir G. Nabarro

rose—

Mr. Heffer

Get back in the cage.

Mr. Stonehouse

I had not finished my supplementary question. Is it not a fact that Lord Hall and the Post Office Board were negotiating to take over a major American supplier of Post Office equipment so that they could ensure that they would be able to obtain Post Office supplies at reasonable prices? Was not this extension of public ownership one of the reasons why the Minister decided to dismiss Lord Hall?

Hon. Members

Oh!

Mr. Chataway

None of the issues which the right hon. Gentleman raises have any bearing on the decision that has been taken.

Mr. Stonehouse

Then what issues have?

Mr. Stratton Mills

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent years—concerning, for example, B.O.A.C. and British Railways—chairmen have been dismissed by the appropriate Ministers? However, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance with a public corporation such as the Post Office of having as a successor to Lord Hall a person who is a first-class manager with experience of operating a very large sector of industry?

Mr. Chataway

I certainly recall the instances which my hon. Friend calls to mind. In none of those did the Minister concerned pass criticism on the individual involved. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says about a successor.

Mr. Charles R. Morris

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that within the ranks of my union, within the ranks of the Post Office staff side generally, and certainly among thousands of postal workers who are queueing outside the Palace of Westminster this afternoon, there has been very high regard for the independence of mind which has been demonstrated by Viscount Hall during his term as Chairman of the Post Office Corporation?

Will the Minister accept as a fact that this decision was taken by a political junta comprising the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself last Saturday morning?—[Interruption.] Will he confirm that his decision does not arise from any differences which he may have had—

Mr. Hastings

On a point of order. Is there not a limit to the time which an hon. Member may occupy when asking a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

The Chair will call an hon. Member to order when he is out of order

Mr. Morris

Will the Minister confirm that this decision does not arise from any conflict of opinion which he might have had with the former Chairman of the Post Office Corporation in regard to the impending Post Office workers' pay claim and the staff side superannuation scheme?

Mr. Chataway

I accept, of course, that Lord Hall has the considerable qualities which the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Mr. Faulds

Then why sack him?

Mr. Chataway

There is absolutely no truth whatever in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about juntas and so on.

Sir G. Nabarro

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at Ipswich on 10th September and at Malvern on 17th September I called on him, on grounds of grave incompetence, to get rid of these Socialist panjandrums and replace them with competent business men of tried and proven ability?

Mr. Chataway

I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks, though I do not have in mind off the cuff the particular speeches to which he refers.

Mr. Golding

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the trade unions, including the members of the Post Office Engineering Union, consider that Lord Hall has qualities of leadership which are of paramount importance in an industry which employs so many people? Is he unaware that among the rank and file workers there is a feeling that Lord Hall has been replaced to make way for a puppet politician chairman who will jump to the demands of the Minister when he is trying to make an example of Post Office workers on pay matters and who will abide by any request made by the Minister to hive off profitable parts of the Post Office to the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite in private industry?

Mr. Chataway

There are no grounds whatever for the fears of the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that this decision, which has been arrived at only after considerable thought and care, would not have been reached had I not been convinced that it was essential for the good management of the Post Office.

Hon. Members

Explain.

Mr. Tilney

Does my right hon. Friend recall that he wrote to me on 27th August saying that he had asked Lord Hall to explain why the Post Office had lost so many cheques from the public to the Winston Churchill statue memorial, the number being now no fewer than 50? Is he aware that only after I wrote to Lord Hall in October did that gentleman reply to me—on 16th November? Will he see that his successor answers his correspondence more quickly?

Mr. Chataway

That is really a management matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Pentland

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who have had dealings with his Department have reached the conclusion that this is a truly disgraceful, politically-motivated decision? Does he know that our experience was that Lord Hall was dedicated to bringing about the success of every aspect—and I emphasise "every aspect"—of the Board's operations and that we found excellent qualities of leadership in him, with both the trade union movement and the members of his staff? Will the right hon. Gentleman now come clean with the House and explain in explicit terms the real reasons behind this decision?

Mr. Chataway

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have made it absolutely clear that I will not spell out here the individual circumstances—[Interruption.]—nor do I intend to break previous precedent by criticising the individual concerned. I have made it clear, however, that I believe it to be absolutely essential for the effective management of the Post Office.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Montgomery.

Mr. Alfred Morris

On a point of order. The Minister was asked earlier if there was any connection between this unexplained sacking and the pay claim. The Minister did not answer that question. Can he be required to come clean with the House and give the answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

There is no power in any Speaker to compel a Minister to answer a question.

Mr. Montgomery

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the country with the general services of the Post Office? Is it not, therefore, quite sensible to make a change at the top in order to get what are much needed improvements?

Mr. Chataway

I believe that there is dissatisfaction. I believe that this is a very demanding job indeed. I believe that the changes which I have announced today will be in the best interests of the Post Office.

Hon. Members

Why?

Mr. Harold Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman has now refused for over a quarter of an hour to give his reasons for this action, and in so doing he has cast an unjustified slur—[Interruption.]—on the individual concerned. Since Lord Hall has said publicly today that he spent an hour, I think it was, with the Minister yesterday and that no reason was given to him, will the Minister tell us whether that is so? Did he give any reason to Lord Hall why he was doing this?

Mr. Chataway

In a long interview yesterday and the day before I explained to Lord Hall why he had lost my confidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but neither in this case nor in the case in which the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend was involved is it appropriate to make public criticisms of the individual?

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that the innuendoes behind the supplementary questions asked from the Front Bench opposite can only be damaging to Lord Hall; and will he resist being tempted down that road? Does he not agree that the nation expects that a Government which have the power to hire shall also have the power to fire and, provided that proper terms of compensation are arranged, there is no damage to the reputation of the individual? What would be damaging would be if people who were appointed to these positions felt that once appointed they were sacrosanct whatever they did.

Mr. Chataway

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in the name of protecting Lord Hall's good name to try to lure me into making public criticism.

Mr. Pardoe

Is the Minister aware that whether or not he has good reasons for his decision, and he may have, his failure to give a satisfactory explanation this afternoon must lead reasonable men to conclude that politics played a major part in his decision? Does he realise that he is in danger of setting an unhappy precedent that, whenever we have a General Election, heads in the public service will roll? In order to clear the air, will he ensure that whoever he appoints to this job in a permanent capacity has had no connection, either financially or politically, openly with the Conservative Party?

Mr. Chataway

I do not believe that reasonable people will be led to any of the conclusions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. When he considers the range of public appointments for which the Government are responsible, he will probably reconsider what he is suggesting. As I have made clear, the decision has been made in the interests of effective management—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and the fact that I am not prepared to set a new precedent by making public criticisms will certainly not lead to any of the disadvantages the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. Tapsell

May I put it to my right hon. Friend, with the greatest respect to Lord Hall, whose personal qualities and devotion to his duties we all respect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that there is very deep and widespread anxiety in the country about the declining standards of the postal and telephone services; and that when these circumstances arise, whether they be in the public or the private sector of the economy, it is right that a change should be made in the leadership of the undertaking concerned?

Mr. Chataway

I believe that there are anxieties and that there will be real benefits, as I have said, from the change that has been made.

Mr. Michael Stewart

My hon. Friends the Members for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) have asked the Minister whether he would make a statement about the future of the Giro and the right of the Post Office to manufacture equipment. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered either question. Will he do so now? In particular, since he has told us that there were no political differences between Lord Hall and himself, can we assume that his opinion on this matter is the same as Lord Hall's?

Mr. Chataway

If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question—[Interruption.]—I will answer it. But I have made it absolutely clear that there is no connection between the future of the Giro and the matter which is now under discussion.

Sir T. Brinton

Has the Minister observed the report in the Evening Standard, which purports to be a verbal report of what Lord Hall said—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot quote in a supplementary question. He can give the sense of what was said.

Sir T. Brinton

It is reported that Lord Hall said that he hoped to God that whatever action the Government took in the future would be in the interests of the Corporation. May we hope that any future appointee will pay more attention to the convenience of the public who are fed up with increasing postal charges and an ever-deteriorating quality of service?

Mr. Chataway

I will bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.

Mr. Sheldon

If our public servants are to do their jobs properly, independent of whatever party is in power, it is essential that they should be confident that party politics will not be among the reasons for their being sacked. Is the Minister aware that the disquiet that there might be amongst public servants as a result of this present action might spread amongst many other public servants? Will he realise that he cannot sack a major public servant without giving the House a proper explanation?

Mr. Chataway

I have set no new precedent whatsoever. Indeed, I have been extremely anxious not to set a precedent which I believe would be very damaging.

Mr. Hastings

Is it not remarkable that not one supplementary question coming from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has had anything to do with the customers' interests? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is not this the basic difference between us, and is it not about time that those interests were considered?

Mr. Chataway

I agree with my hon. Friend. The action I have taken has nothing to do with party politics, as has been suggested, but solely to do with the service available to the public.

Mr. Heffer

As the Minister has said that his decision to eliminate, if that is the word to use, Lord Hall from his job has nothing to do with the future of the Giro, and as a considerable number of Giro workers live in my constituency, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that the Giro will continue, that there will not be any redundancies, and that we can look forward to a very happy future for it?

Mr. Chataway

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows. I have taken a keen interest in the Giro; indeed, I have recently visited it. There is nothing I would like better than to have a debate on its future. But that does not arise on this issue today, nor does any other major matter of Post Office policy.

Mr. Farr

Is not the Minister's action good evidence that the Government are determined to take firm steps to control this large and critically important enterprise, and should not the Government therefore be fully supported by the House?

Mr. Chataway

The Government have a responsibility for the effective manage- ment of the Post Office, and it is in the discharge of that responsibility that this action has been taken.

Mr. Edward Short

The Minister has twice said that he has a responsibility to the House under the Post Office Corporation Act. Has he not under our constitution a duty to explain his actions to the House? Has he not treated the House with an arrogance and a contempt which is unusual even for that Government?

Mr. Chataway

I believe that I would have been serving the House extremely poorly if I had been lured into criticism of an individual on an occasion such as this.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of these supplementary questions and answers it has only just been brought to my attention that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, is challenging the legality of the action that has been taken by the Minister. If that be the case, ought this not now to be regarded as a matter which is sub judice?

Mr. Speaker

The Table will correct me if I am wrong. The sub judice rule comes into effect the moment the judicial process starts.

Mr. Bottomley

Further to that point of order. Will the Minister say whether Lord Hall has the right of appeal?

Mr. Chataway

This does not arise, because Lord Hall and I have agreed to the terms of the statement that was issued in the early hours of this morning, and the decision that Lord Hall should relinquish his post has been agreed between him and me.

Mr. Tom Boardman

Does it not amount to this—that it is the Government's duty to ensure that the Post Office is efficiently managed? Should not the Government have the support of all parts of the House when they reach the very difficult conclusion that a change in chairmanship is in the interests of the efficient management of this great enterprise?

Mr. Chataway

My hon. Friend correctly states the constitutional position.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order, order.

Mr. Harold Wilson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Precedent in such a case would suggest that an hon. or right hon. Member would move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 so that this matter could be debated. However, I am sure the House will agree that if this were done and you followed precedent and granted it, it might not be to the convenience of the House, because it would have to take place tomorrow in the middle of a debate which we all want—we certainly want it and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members oposite do. Therefore, to make the position clear, may I make it plain that we certainly intend that this matter shall be debated, that it should be debated in Government time, and that a Motion of censure will be down to that effect.

Mr. W. Baxter

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, as this has a bearing on Scotland as well as on England, may I ask why no Scottish Member caught your eye to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

It is very difficult for every hon. Member who is seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye not to be disappointed when he fails. I tried to take a cross-section of the House. I am sorry that I omitted the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bidwell

As this action has caused constituents of mine to present themselves at the House today in numbers such that I cannot remember happening before—an instantaneous lobby—is it right that a Minister should come to the House ostensibly to give an explanation and yet waste the time of the House for so many minutes in non-explanation of his action?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. It might have been a good supplementary if the hon. Gentleman had got in.

Hon. Members

Resign!