POSTAL SERVICES (NORTH-WEST LONDON) (Hansard, 25 July 1977)

§ The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley)
Following the removal of 65 bags of Grunwick mail on Saturday, the Post Office called upon all workers at the Cricklewood office to resume normal working. I understand that the postal workers at Cricklewood held a meeting this morning, and a further meeting is to be held later today.
The Post Office and the Union of Post Office Workers are doing all possible to persuade the staff to work normally.

§ Sir K. Joseph
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is reported that pension books are being held up, and it is certain that business men and people in the Cricklewood area totally unconnected with the industrial dispute are suffering damage? Are such people entitled to compensation? Second, has the Secretary 29 of State received any request that the postal monopoly should be removed for the relevant duration and area?
Third, recognising that the Post Office has difficulty in carrying out its statutory duties and that there is bound to be a risk in enforcing the law, will the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that there is much greater risk in not enforcing the law?

§ Mr. Varley
I am, of course, aware of the difficulty being caused in the NW2 district to those who use the postal service and of the damage which it is causing. That is the reason why the Post Office, with the Union of Post Office Workers, has consistently advised those who work in that office to resume normal working. Their efforts are taking place today, and they will continue through the day until they achieve their objective.
As regards compensation, I understand that people are not entitled to compensation as a result of this difficulty, but it is something I shall look into further with the Post Office Corporation.
I have not received any specific request from anybody living in the NW2 area for the lifting of the monopoly, but, of course, I have discussed it with the Post Office Corporation. I have not come to any decision at this stage. The House will recall that, on the last occasion when the right hon. Gentleman put a Private Notice Question to me, I said that lifting the monopoly at this stage could well exacerbate the situation.

§ Mr. Peter Thomas
Does the Secretary of State agree with the statement recently made by the General Secretary of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association, following a request made by APEX that his members should withhold supplies of electricity to Grunwick, that, irrespective of the merits of a particular dispute, if workers with a statutory obligation to provide services to the whole community start down the road of discrimination we would indeed be on the highway to anarchy?
If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, will he forcibly bring it to the notice of the Post Office? Second, has the right hon. Gentleman personally considered the many letters which I have sent to him from people in the NW2 area who are suffering considerable damage, 30 and, if he has personally considered them, why has he not given me the courtesy of any replies?
Third, is the Secretary of State aware that, unless the Post Office insists on the performance of its clear statutory duty to provide services to the NW2 area, there will be a widespread and irresistible demand for a change in the Post Office monopoly and a change in the 1969 Act so that people who suffer damage may receive compensation?

§ Mr. Varley
I am not aware of any statement made by the General Secretary of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association, but, of course, both my colleagues and I, speaking from this Dispatch Box, have consistently made plain that we think that normal services ought to be resumed in the Cricklewood sorting office —and that is the view of the Union of Post Office Workers, too.
As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letters, I have seen a good many letters concerning this dispute, and many of them are receiving my personal attention.

§ Mr. Pavitt
Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the Post Office to ensure that, irrespective of their attitude towards the Grunwick mail bags, Post Office workers be permitted to clear every other letter in the NW2 district, as they have been willing to do for the past three weeks? Further, before the provocative action took place last Saturday afternoon—when 65 Grunwick mail bags were removed, although business men in the NW2 area had been requesting the same facility for three weeks and had been denied it—was there any consultation with the Government, including the Department of Employment? I ask because of the possibility of the escalation of this trouble on account of what seems to the people in the area to be justice not appearing to be done, with Grunwick being treated in one way, and its mail bags being escorted by the police, whereas other people's mail remains still in the office? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this makes the rule of law and order look rather silly?

§ Mr. Varley
I understand from the Post Office that the 65 bags of Grunwick mail removed on Saturday had not yet entered the postal system—that is to say, 31 it was unfranked mail. It was a decision of the Post Office, after consulting the Union of Post Office Workers. I was not informed until the action had been carried out.

§ Sir K. Joseph
Reverting to his earlier answer to me, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Post Office has itself suggested to him that the monopoly be removed for the duration and area concerned?

§ Mr. Varley
The Post Office has put to me that it would be as well for the Government to consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am trying to choose my words. This is a difficult matter, and I want to get it right. It is all very well for hon. Members to shout, but it is a difficult matter. The Post Office has put to me the suggestion that the Government should consider revocation. I told the Post Office, when it put it to me, that at this stage it is the view of the Government—the political view of the Government—that to do that would exacerbate the situation.

§ Mr. Gorst
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, apart from the two places in NW2, mail is being interfered with in both W1 and EC1? Second, will he give a general direction to the Post Office to dismiss those workers who refuse to handle the mail? Third, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it was the Prime Minister himself who vetoed the suspension of the Post Office monopoly?

§ Mr. Varley
No, it was not the Prime Minister himself. I took the decision, I recommended that decision to my colleagues, and they accepted it. As regards other mail being interfered with, I understand that there is some trouble in other districts, but our decision is as I have stated it on many occasions, namely, that we want to see services pursued normally throughout.

§ Mr. Hooson
Does the Secretary of State agree that for the Post Office to tolerate selective interference with the mail will create a dangerous precedent and that hon. Members on his side of the House who are cheering might reflect that that selective interference could one day be used against their interests? Second, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sole justification for a 32 monopoly in the Post Office is so that the Post Office itself and its employees could carry out their statutory duty?

§ Mr. Varley
Our view is as I have already stated it, that normal working ought to be resumed right throughout the Post Office service. That is what the Post Office Corporation is trying to achieve, and in that it is assisted by the Union of Post Office Workers.

§ Mr. Skinner
Will my right hon. Friend agree that in any strike or industrial conflict someone is bound to get hurt? That would apply if the doctors were to go on strike, as they have suggested they might do, in the relatively near future. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that in the Post Office strike of 1971, which was created by the Opposition who were then in government, there was wide-scale disruption throughout the length and breadth of the country for many small business men, industrialists and others? Does he also agree that in the Tory-orchestrated miners' strike of 1974, during the three-day week, the activities of millions of people were disrupted as a result of the Tories' campaign against the miners? If compensation is to be paid, should it not be put at the door of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and George Ward?

§ Mr. Varley
There are difficulties and inconveniences in any industrial dispute. That is axiomatic. My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the history of Post Office disputes. In 1971, there was massive disruption and, as I understand, no member of the Opposition, who were then sitting on this side of the House, said that prosecutions or other action should be taken against the Post Office workers. Similarly, in 1973, when highly discriminatory action was taken when the Post Office workers blacked communications between this country and France in protest against the test ban treaty, no action was taken by the then Conservative Government.

§ Mr. Dykes
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has had a bad run lately, but will he promise the House that he will get a grip on this absurd and ridiculous dispute and crisis? Is he aware that at the meeting of small businesses last Thursday a large number of small companies made it clear that they are literally 33 on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of this dispute?
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore undertake to do three things without further delay: first, to sack Sir William Ryland for gross incompetence and complacency as a result of the actions of the last few days; secondly, to meet the Post Office workers in the location concerned to get them back to work; and, thirdly, to make sure, as a result of sorting out the Post Office's legal and statutory duties, that a similar situation does not arise again?

§ Mr. Varley
The answer to the first question is, "No". The answer to the second is that I shall get in touch with the officials of the Union of Post Office Workers. The answer to the third is that I, together with my colleagues, are urging that normal services be resumed in NW2.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
I acknowledge that postmen cannot be compelled to deliver Grunwick mail if they do not wish to do so. Is it not the case that innocent users in Cricklewood of the Post Office service are suffering because the discriminatory action was enlarged as a result of Opposition Members urging the Government to put pressure on the Post Office to deal with its workpeople? Before the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) goes further with his line of argument, will my right hon. Friend recognise that if further pressure is put on the men by sacking them the likelihood is that none of us will get any mail?

§ Mr. Varley
That is one of the considerations which we have had to have in mind, and I am sure that right hon. Members opposite had it in mind when they were in government during the 1971 and 1973 disputes. I have not been able to advise my colleagues that we should lift the monopoly because we think at this stage that it would only create even further difficulties for postal users in Britain.

§ Mr. Tebbit
First, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for the Post Office asking for its statutory monopoly to be suspended and the Secretary of State refusing to recommend that course of action to his colleagues? Secondly, can he tell us 34 exactly why postmen will not go to work in NW2?

§ Mr. Varley
I understand that further meetings are to take place today and that discussions will take place about the handling of the mail and backlog of mail of the small businesses which are being severely affected. Quite frankly, I do not know whether the lifting of the monopoly has been refused when requested.