§ 3.6 p.m.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements are made for relief in case of sickness for postmasters and postmistresses working single-handed in charge of small offices; and upon whom the cost of such arrangements falls.]
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, the noble Lady's Question refers to postmasters and postmistresses working single-handed in charge of small post offices. By the description of the work I think she must be referring to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who are employed on an agency basis and who are not obliged to attend to the work personally, being free to employ others if they so wish. It accordingly rests with the sub-postmaster who falls ill to continue to make arrangements for the staffing in his office. If he cannot do this, the head postmaster usually provides a substitute to keep the office open, either full-time or part-time. In these circumstances the sub-postmaster would be required to meet the cost within the limit of his remuneration, but here again special consideration is given to cases where hardship would arise.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he satisfied that this is a proper condition of employment of persons who are, after all, Government servants, even if on an agency basis? Would he approve of the application of the same principle at higher levels in the Post Office?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, at higher levels of the Post Office they are civil servants. As I pointed out, they are not civil servants in the case of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. And sub-post offices are not in fact intended to provide an independent livelihood. The majority are carried on in conjunction with another occupation, usually that of shopkeeper.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied about the minority which are not so carried on and which are a main livelihood, where there is no secondary occupation?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, am I to understand that if a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress were to fall ill and it were necessary to employ somebody to carry out the task, those officers would therefore be without any form of income, since the cost of the substitute would have to be borne by the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress? Surely this is quite different from the way we treat any other employee throughout this country.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, two points arise there. First of all, I have pointed out that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are not direct employees: they take on the job on an agency basis. Secondly, I have also made the point that in cases of hardship special arrangements would be made in order to avoid that hardship. In point of fact, I think that the noble Lady is referring to the special case in her own sub-post office at Abinger Common, where the sub-postmistress fell ill on December 28 and an officer of the Department was sent to take over her duties on December 29. On January 3 the sub-postmistress informed the head postmaster that because of her illness her last day of service should be regarded as December 31, and this was accepted. The sub-postmistress has not been charged for the loan of departmental staff for these few days and no cost has fallen upon her.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord made it perfectly clear that many sub-postmasters have a very small income from the postal duties. Can he say, 1303 when a locum is employed, at an obviously much higher salary, that in no circumstances will the sub-postmaster be at a financial loss through the employment of a locum?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I do not think I can say that in no case will that be so. I am sorry to be so repetitive, but the fact is that they take it on on an agency basis and make themselves responsible for the upkeep of the sub-post office, whether or not they are engaged there themselves in the normal course of conducting the post office, which sometimes is not so.
§ LORD LAWSONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there have been any complaints on this matter, individually or through any organisation?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, all I can say is that I know of no such complaints. That is not the same as saying there have not been any.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, since the noble Lord said in his reply to Lord Stonham, that he cannot give a guarantee that in no circumstances does the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress lose, can he explain how he reconciles this with his first Answer to me that the cost of the substitute is within the limits of the remuneration of the sub-postmaster?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I must be explaining myself very badly, because I did say, in point of fact, that when a case of hardship could be proved, as in the case of the sub-post office of the noble Lady's village, special arrangements were made. But the normal practice is that, in view of the fact that it is carried on on an agency basis, the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress is responsible for seeing that the work of the post office does not cease.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, will the noble Lord look at the matter again and make sure that in ordinary circumstances or, indeed, in any circumstances the substitute will not be more expensive to the sub-postmistress than her own remuneration; that a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress will not have to pay more than he or she receives? Would he look at that point again?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I will certainly look at the noble Lady's words and see whether in some way I have failed to give her the answer I intended to give, which I felt should have been satisfactory to her.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, quite apart from the personal and remunerative aspect of this matter, is the noble Lord satisfied that these somewhat curious arrangements are efficient for the handling of Her Majesty's mail?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, to the best of my belief the arrangements for sub-post offices which I have described have given general satisfaction.