POST OFFICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

HL Deb 10 March 1954 vol 186 cc280-6

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that it is in the interests of the public and of the Post Office that the advice tendered to the Postmaster General by the Post Office Advisory Council should be disclosed. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for trespassing upon your time twice in one afternoon, without even the excuse of being a Minister. I do not think I have ever done it before, and I hope that I shall not do it again. I shall be quite brief in what I have to say. I am addressing this question to the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, to raise what I regard as a principle of sound Post Office administration. I feel that it is appropriate that a matter of this kind, which is one of administrative policy and not of political Party policy, should be raised in this House, where there are so many noble Lords who have had experience as Ministers or in Government service, and who know from their personal experience the workings of departmental advisory committees. What I should like to know is whether the Government intend to stick to the customary practice of treating the advice given by the Post Office Advisory Council to Ministers as confidential, or whether they mean to start a new practice of disclosing the views of the Council about specific matters of special importance. Doubt has arisen in my mind as a result of the statement made last week by the noble Earl opposite, and by his colleague in another place, about the views of the Council on the proposed increase in the charge for inland telegrams.

Let me admit—because I do not want to conceal my own bias—that about this matter I am a staunch conservative and upholder of tradition. I dread the likely consequences of further breaches in the practice of secrecy between the Minister and his advisers. One of the first things I did when I went to the Post Office in 1945 was to call together the Advisory Council, which had lapsed during the war years. I benefited greatly from their advice on a number of occasions, and I am sure that my successors at the Post Office have had the same experience. It is because I fully appreciate the value and importance of their work that I hope the Government will not adopt a new practice of disclosure. There are two reasons why disclosure would, I believe, make it impossible, in the long run, for the Advisory Council to do their job effectively. The first is that publicity would undoubtedly drag the Council into Party politics. The second is that publicity would also make the Council a subject of violent controversy and criticism in Parliament and the Press.

May I substantiate my second view? If the Post Office Minister discloses the views of the Council when they agree with his, then it is obviously of no less importance to the public, and also to the Council's reputation for impartiality, that their views should be disclosed when they are at variance with those of the Minister on any important issue of policy submitted to them for their consideration. But, in practice, the Minister would not wish to weaken the case he submits to Parliament for his policy by admitting that he differs from his Advisory Council. I do not know of a single instance in the history of the Post Office when this has happened. The noble Earl opposite has the advantage of access to Post Office records, an advantage which I lack, but I doubt whether he could point to an instance of that kind. The public would, therefore, know the views of the Council only when they were in agreement with those of the Minister. The Council would come, in the end, to be regarded as a convenient reinforcement for the Party in power, and they would lose their reputation—a reputation which they enjoy at the present time—as an impartial body of consumers' representatives. The Council are inevitably exposed to public criticism as soon as the advice they have tendered has been disclosed. Those who agree with their views will say that they give good advice; those who disagree with their views will say that they give bad advice. I should nave thought that what happened last Wednesday was an obvious lesson in the linger of publicity and controversy resulting from disclosure

Your Lordships will remember that in another place there was the unhappy episode of a Minister in hot dispute with one of his own advisers. The accuracy of the Minister's version of the Council's advice was challenged. That might happen again. It was suggested on that occasion that the relevant documents, presumably the minutes of the proceedings which took place at the meeting of the Council at which the increased charges were discussed, might be placed in the Library for inspection by Members. That, surely, is an object lesson in what is likely to happen if disclosure is repeated. I suggest to the Government that the only way in which to avoid these dangers and to safeguard the excellent work and high reputation of the Advisory Council is for Ministers to continue to observe the customary practice of not referring in public to the nature of the advice given them by the Council. It should be quite sufficient for the public to know that the Council has been consulted and that its views have received genuinely thoughtful consideration. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

5.32 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in support of what my noble friend. has said, but from a slightly different angle. This is a case in which the responsibility lies upon a Minister and upon the Government collectively. It is not a case in which there is power delegated to some other body to make a decision. Ministers, of course, obtain advice from whatever sources they wish to obtain it. No doubt their first source of advice is the permanent Civil Service, but they may obtain advice from any person, or body of persons, whom they consider competent to give it; and they may set up a body such as this for the purpose of advising them. But in the end the responsibility is the Ministers', and I feel that if the advice which is given to Ministers by any person or body of persons is disclosed in this way it may have the unfortunate tendency of undermining ministerial responsibility; and that, I am sure we shall all agree, would be unfortunate.

More than that, if advice is going to be disclosed, then in order that we may appreciate what the effect of it is, we shall have to know what was the question that was put to the advisers, because without knowing both question and answer it is impossible to understand fully the meaning of the answer. There is perhaps a further step which ought to be taken, if the path of disclosure is once embarked upon; that is, what were the data placed before the advisers upon which they were asked for their opinions? Unless we know what facts were placed before them, we are not in a position to estimate the value of their opinions. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend that it is better that disclosure should not be started at all, otherwise it will go to lengths which will render this system practically impossible and defeat its real objects.

5.35 p.m.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, as usual, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has raised a matter in connection with the Post Office in a most reasonable manner, and I thank him for the way he has done it. He has always remained a friend of the Post Office ever since he was there. My own feeling on the point he has raised is that I should be extremely sorry to lay down any strict rules. As the noble Earl will remember, it is seldom that matters are brought to a definite head on the Post Office Advisory Council. They are generally discussed in general terms and, as the noble Earl suggested, these discussions are extremely useful. After they have taken place it is for the Postmaster General to make up his mind and to take full responsibility for what he does. Certainly this matter of telegrams was brought up for discussion on quite a number of occasions before I decided to take action. It seems to me that there must be times and occasions—admittedly, exceptional: I freely accord that to the noble Earl—when the public are entitled to the assurance that every possible point has been examined from every possible angle. It certainly seemed to me that in this case, where, after all, we were taking the extremely drastic step of doubling the charge for telegrams, it was an occasion when the public were so entitled. And the corollary to that is that the Postmaster General must have the right, at his discretion, to give the public the assurance that the Post Office Advisory Council has been consulted.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Suppose that the Committee had disagreed to it. Would the noble Earl have told the public that there was disagreement with the Council? That is what seems to me so important.

EARL DE LA WARR

None of us likes answering hypothetical questions, but I was going to deal with another hypothetical question. Whether I should actually have referred to the Council at this time, if I had not been specifically asked in your Lordships' House what attitude they had taken, is, I again repeat, a hypothetical question. I can make no apology at all to the noble Earl for doing so, as it seems to me that it must be the right of the Minister, at his discretion, to state the advice that he has received from his advisers. However, I agree with the noble Earl that the less frequently this is done, the better. I should like to repeat what I have already said: that no advice that is quoted must be used in any way to suggest that the Minister does not take full responsibility for what he does. If he does quote that advice, it must be rather as an assurance to the public that every point has been examined in every quarter, rather than as a means of shelving his responsibility. Noble Lords will remember that that was certainly the spirit in which I took the action I did.

LORD MATHERS

My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Earl is claiming the right to be the sole judge as to when things should be disclosed—he accepted responsibility and he must be the sole judge. I would remind him that he is not simply a Minister, but a servant of Parliament. He derives his power from Parliament and must, therefore, be answerable to Parliament. It seems to me that the corollary to what he has said is that Parliament also must have the right to decide, if and when it wishes to know what was the advice given by the Advisory Council.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I am sorry, but I really cannot agree with the noble Lord. It is customary for Ministers to have advisory committees. The Ministers appoint these committees, and the advice is given to the Minister. It must, therefore, be alt the discretion of the Minister what use he makes of that advice.

House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.