§ 3.42 p.m.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may make a statement about the future of the Post Office similar to that which is being made by my right honourable Friend the Postmaster General, in another place.
The Government has decided to give practical recognition to the commercial character of the Post Office. A Command Paper which is now available in the Printed Paper Office describes how it is proposed to give effect to this.
The Government's intention is to separate the current finances of the Post Office from the Exchequer. A Statutory Trading Fund for the Post Office under the control of the Postmaster General would be set up. All Post Office receipts would be paid into it; all Post Office payments would be met out of it. The Postmaster General's power to draw on the Fund would lapse unless it were renewed each year by an Affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons.
The commercial character of the Post Office has already been recognised in some degree. These proposals will complete this process by giving the Post Office statutory recognition as a self-contained business. They will encourage the Post Office to approach the problems of organisation and management more commercially and to evince an even greater sense of enterprise in providing services which satisfy the needs of the whole community.
§ EARL ATTLEEMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl: does that mean the abrogation of what is generally called the Post Office principle of trying to serve the whole of the public and not being ashamed to make losses? Because I was advised, when I was Postmaster General a long time ago, that if we had run the telephone service on strictly commercial lines there would be no telephones at all North of the Highland line. Is that a new turn-out now on commercial principles, or is that being discounted?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this would mean no such abrogation. It would mean, of course—and this is the essential difference between the Post Office if it were a private enterprise business and the Post Office as it will be—that it will have to pay regard to what we might briefly call its social obligations; but otherwise the financial structure of the Post Office seems now to be at a stage when it is better for the more simple understanding of Parliament, and indeed the better control of Parliament, to have things in this way.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, that answer is a very good and interesting one, but I should like to look at it in print. Perhaps I might ask one or two other points of the noble Lord the Minister. First, all Post Office employees to-day are civil servants: they are direct Government employees. Will this turning of the Post Office into what is called a "commercial concern" in any way affect their terms of employment, conditions of service and the like?
My second point has reference to what the noble Lord the Minister has just said about the control of Parliament and the like. After all the controversy that has gone on as to whether existing nationalised industries are sufficiently accountable to Parliament, is it intended by this change, to reduce the accountability of the Post Office, through Ministers, to Parliament? At present they are subject to specific questions on a day which is set apart in the other place, or at any time in your Lordships' House, when Questions can be put direct to a Minister on the Post Office. Is there to be any change in the standard of accountability to Parliament under this new debased arrangement? As I understand it, the 444 break with the Treasury means that the Post Office will not be called upon to pay surpluses into the Treasury. Is that to be understood? And if the surpluses are not to be paid into the Treasury can we look for a reduction in postal charges under this new arrangement?
LORD REAMy Lords, before the noble Lord answers may I put to him a supplementary question? If there should be a surplus at the end of the year will that automatically go back into Post Office funds? And if there should be a deficit, how is that to be met?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I would say that those are excellent questions. As the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, he has not yet had a chance to see the White Paper, but if I may I will briefly answer those questions now. So far as the status of employees and staff is concerned, they will remain civil servants, as at present, subject to exactly the same conditions of pay and so on as they have now, so that in that sense there is an exception to making the Post Office fully independent.
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEMy Lords, this is of course a very important statement. We realise that it makes for great changes in a very considerable part of the account-keeping of the country. The admirable statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Postmaster General gives us a certain amount of information, and no doubt in the White Paper we shall get a great deal more particulars. It may be, and I believe very probably will be, that this House will wish to discuss the matter later. No doubt if that were so, Her Majesty's Government would give us facilities, should we think it desirable.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I have no doubt that that may be so, and I am sure no impediment would be put in the way of a discussion. In due course there will have to be legislation in this matter, and that will provide yet a further opportunity for discussion.
If I may briefly run through the provisions which noble Lords have not yet had a chance to see, apart from the annual Resolution for the Postmaster General to be able to operate the statutory fund, Parliament would have the following opportunities to authorise 445 by vote the salaries of Post Office Ministers as they normally do, which is another occasion on which matters could be debated. The Postmaster General would be under a statutory obligation to present a report and commercial accounts, which would be in greater detail than at present, and which, of course, could also be debated. The Postmaster General would also give Parliament statements on the prospects for the ensuing year, on the investment programme and plans for financing it, and on the staff employed. The commercial accounts would also be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and would be subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee.
In addition, the borrowing of new capital would have to be authorised by legislation, thereby providing a further opportunity, and it is intended to provide that in future all Post Office tariffs shall be fixed by regulations subject to Negative Resolution. At present, of course, some are subject to Parliamentary control and some are not. Finally, Post Office Ministers would continue to answer questions as at present.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would those regulations for fixing prices be laid?
§ LORD CHESHAMYes, they would be; they would have to be.
LORD PETHECK-LAWRENCEMy Lords, I imagine also that the change would affect the Budget statement very considerably and, as such, the discussion of the Budget in another place. I take it that some chance would be given later to get the position clear from a Budgetary point of view, which no doubt we shall have to consider most carefully.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, no doubt that would be so. It will make a considerable difference, but principally I think the whole thing will be very much easier for everyone to understand. Consequently, with the various opportunities of control which I have just mentioned, it should be definitely easier for Parliament to be satisfied about the necessary controls of the Post Office finances.
There are a couple more questions about surpluses payable. If there is a surplus at the end of the year, subject to whatever it is decided the Post Office 446 will pay as equivalent to taxation to the Treasury, that surplus will be retained by the Post Office for the benefit of its own finances and its customers, for use in whatever way the surplus would permit. Similarly, if there should be a deficit it would be a matter for Post Office financial arrangements within the Post Office, but, of course, subject to Parliamentary control, to put the matter right.
VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, may I ask a simple question? Would it be possible for the Postmaster General to increase the charge for an ordinary letter to 4d. unless the Commons passes a Negative Resolution? It would be very difficult to find time for such a Resolution in the House of Commons.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, it is not quite as simple a question as that. As I understand the matter the answer is, Yes.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his valuable and interesting answers, may I put a question that was in my mind?—it has been partly answered. I assume that there will be a Postmaster General responsible for the whole of the work of the Post Office and responsible to Parliament and able to be bullied by Parliament about what he does? Is that so?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, yes. I think that, on behalf of my right honourable friend, I must regretfully say, Yes.
VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, is it not a fact that he is authorised, unless by Negative Resolution, and he can give instructions to the Whips to see that no one can move the Resolution, in order to be a dictator?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I do not think I should care to accept that suggestion.