§ 3.45 p.m.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, may I now, with your Lordships' permission, repeat a Statement now being made by the Postmaster General in another place on the Post Office dispute. This is the Statement:
"As the House knows, the strike of overseas telegraphists which began on 20th January has been extended by the Union of Post Office Workers to a ban on overtime by all their members at the beginning of this week and to a complete withdrawal of labour in the major cities throughout the course of to-day.
"The effect on the telecommunications services has been very much as I predicted. In the overseas services the non-operation of the telegraph message and manually operated telex services has led to some congestion in the automatic services. But this has not caused serious dislocation. The ban on overtime has not worsened the position in the overseas services significantly and the effect on the inland services has been slight.
"The effect of to-day's strike is inevitably great. The number of staff reporting for duty in the telephone service has varied from a very few in some places to nearly 100 per cent. in others. In all the 19 affected towns a skeleton service is being maintained in most switch rooms and a service of better quality in some. The '999' service has been maintained in operation everywhere. The inland telegram service is virtually closed. In the 18 provincial towns affected by the strike a skeleton service is being given. Outside the 19 affected areas the inland telephone operator and telegram services are functioning with little disturbance.
"To-day the overseas automatic telex and telephone services are working normally and the overseas operator telephone service is handling reasonably successfully all the traffic offered it which is mainly from London.
"In the cities where postal workers are on strike to-day there will be a massive backlog of mail by to-morrow.
1289 "In order to give priority to really urgent mail I have therefore decided that from start of business to-morrow the inland second-class letter service (that is, the 4d. service) will be suspended, and also the inland printed paper service for packets between 1½ and 2 lb. In addition Regional Directors are authorised to refuse at their discretion to accept local parcels, and large batches of first class (5d.) mail, newspapers and periodicals.
"I am giving Regional Directors similar discretion to maintain or reopen services internal to their own Regions, or with neighbouring Regions by arrangement, as circumstances permit.
"Information about local restrictions and services will be made available in the towns concerned.
"For the time being I am not imposing any restriction on the overseas services.
"I hope these measures will be successful in keeping the urgent mail flowing reasonably well.
"Second-class mail already in the pipe-line will in some cases unfortunately be subject to heavy delay.
"I repeat what I have already told the House, that I greatly regret this escalation of the dispute and the great inconvenience which it is causing to our customers.
"On the actual negotiations I have nothing to add to the Statement I made on Monday in the House."
My Lords, that Statement, of course, was made in the course of a debate in another place when your Lordships were not sitting, and therefore it is not formally before the House; but if there are any questions on that aspect I shall be glad to try to answer them.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement his right honourable friend made in another place. I should just like to ask him this question, referring to the debate in another place and his right honourable friend's speech. He said in that speech that on Monday—that was the day of the debate—he had made a further approach to the Union suggesting 1290 two slight differences in approach. I would ask the noble Lord when his right honourable friend expects to meet the Union again with regard to getting an answer on this further approach; and will he keep the House informed as to anything else that can be said on this subject?
My Lords, while nobody would want to say anything that would prejudice the settlement of this unfortunate dispute, will both sides bear in mind that in most disputes between employer and employed the people who really suffer are the unfortunate British public; and this is especially so in this case. This morning, on my way into London, I passed a procession of Post Office workers carrying a large placard which said, "Blame the P.O.—not us". When will the general public reply, "Take it out on the P.O., then; not on us"?
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Denham, but to say that I have no comments to make on the arrangements which are being made. I am sure that they are absolutely adequate. But may I ask the noble Lord what action the Government are taking to try to do something about the dispute itself? Does this not show the absurdity of not having adequate machinery for conciliation in the Civil Service? And is the Minister or the Government proposing to bring in the Department of Employment and Productivity, or, for instance, to refer the productivity angle of this dispute to the Prices and Incomes Board? I ask the Government, apart from the arrangements that they have made, what is going to be done to try to bring this dispute to a conclusion? The country cannot afford this strike.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am not absolutely certain what are the two points to which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, referred, but I will give answers on the two that I think he had in mind; and if I am not answering him no doubt he will ask a supplementary question. One particular proposition which was made—in fact I made it because of my responsibilities under the Prime Minister for the Civil Service—was to summon that particular meeting, though I should like to make it clear that 1291 of course the Postmaster General is responsible for the Post Office, and is responsible, and continues to be responsible, for carrying on actual negotiations.
This will bear a little on what the noble Lord said. The Union were reluctant to use the well-established procedure in the Civil Service (and the Post Office are still within the Civil Service) of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. I do not wish to be drawn into discussing in detail the points at issue. The Union, which is the Union of Post Office Workers, do not wish to go to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, for reasons which seem good to them, though I must say that, like the Postmaster General, I regret that they are not doing so. We suggested, therefore, that instead of going to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal we should create a different type of body, of which, however, the Chairman might be Professor Hugh Clegg, who is the Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, a man who is extremely experienced in productivity questions and a former member of the Prices and Incomes Board. This was not acceptable to the Union, who do not wish to go to arbitration.
The only other point that I think the noble Lord has in mind is in relation to the additional 2 per cent. on top of the 5 per cent. which was offered—the 2 per cent. which was related to increased productivity. This offer had, I understand, been made, but it was perhaps further clarified that the Government were prepared to have this costed locally after the event and any adjustments made on this.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whether the machinery for conciliation is adequate. On this I would ask him to be extremely careful, because the Civil Service, through its Whitley system and the system of the Pay Research Unit, in fact has a most successful and sophisticated method of consultation on all questions of wages, and although difficulties arise, the negotiations are conducted against a background of an established drill which, as noble Lords opposite who have been in Government will agree, has led to an extraordinary degree of mutual understanding and of successful negotiation.
The noble Lord is suggesting that there should be a different machinery 1292 of conciliation. It is true that the Post Office is a halfway house at the moment. In a few months' time it will cease to be part of the Civil Service. But it is still part of the Civil Service, and therefore there is much to be said against just tearing up existing machinery. But I would make clear to noble Lords that the Department of Employment and Productivity are naturally advisers to the Government in this matter—indeed, at the meeting which I had earlier in this week they were represented by an Under-Secretary and by Mr. Cattell, who is of course an expert and is the Director of the Productivity Service Division. I think, therefore, that although I have noted the noble Lord's point, I should prefer not to be drawn any further on it.
The noble Lord also asked what further steps the Government are taking. At the moment it is exceedingly difficult to make a suggestion when in fact the threat of industrial action is being pressed and we are now in the middle of that industrial action. I would only say that the Government are extremely anxious, as is the public and, I do not doubt, the Union itself, to see an end of this matter. But there is a fundamental disagreement on certain aspects of how it should be approached, and I fear I have nothing to add on this at the moment.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I ask one more question? If the Post Office were not regarded as a Civil Service organisation, would not the Minister of Employment and Productivity have intervened?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the noble Lord is translating this issue into a different environment where there is not the same established machinery. I hope that when the Post Office moves into the new area they will adopt a satisfactory arbitration procedure. But the fact is that they have not so far moved. I could give answers as to whether I would have said the conciliation machinery is appropriate in these particular circumstances. This is a highly technical question, and I would say to the noble Lord that the Government have given, and are continuing to give, close consideration to the very points he is making.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, could the noble Lord clarify how far the responsibilities for the negotiations in this dispute lie with him as Minister responsible to the Prime Minister for the Civil Service, and how far they lie with the Postmaster General?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the responsibility must rest with the responsible Minister. I do not wish to be drawn into the philosophy of government, but noble Lords opposite who have served in Government will be aware that in this respect the Government are indivisible. But there have been occasions in the past—indeed, in the days when Mr. Bevins was Postmaster General—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the time when the Treasury were responsible for the Civil Service, has in fact been involved. This was an initiative which one took in order to establish quite clearly the position of the Government in the matter, and it was an attempt to arrange, within a different environment, for the two sides to talk. It is a difficult area to clarify, but I would emphasise that responsibility remains with the Postmaster General; but there are times when other Ministers get called in, and on this occasion I was asked to assist, and so was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary from the Department of Employment and Productivity.
§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDALMy Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the position if any arrangements are made for private delivery and receipt of letters during this emergency? Of course, in normal circumstances this is quite illegal. What is the position of anybody trying to assist or to organise such a service privately in this situation?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the noble Lord has asked a winner. I simply do not know the answer. I should imagine that if it was illegal before it is probably illegal now. None the less, I have taken the noble Lord's point. Perhaps I had better get advice on that one.
§ LORD TREFGARNEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is widespread concern that the Postmaster General, because he is not a member of the Cabinet, has insufficient power to deal with this dispute, and that it has been stated that he has to take every individual point back to his Cabinet colleagues? 1294 Secondly, has it been possible to examine whether or not the Royal Corps of Signals, or other suitable military organisations, could help at least in keeping the international manually operated telex services working?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think I have already dealt with the first point in the general principles I have enunciated, and one of the purposes of the meeting I had was to make it clear that in this matter the Government, like all Governments, have to act as a unified body. I must reject the idea that the Postmaster General—as a lot of the Press reported—was taking a different view. In regard to the manually operated services, I did say—and I am not sure whether this entirely answers the noble Lord's point—that the overseas automatic telex and telephone services are working normally, and the overseas operated telephone service is handling reasonably successfully all the traffic offered to it.
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I find it very difficult to follow this dispute because, so far as I can understand, the overseas telegraph people claim that they have not been treated as well as the other Post Office employees; in fact, that they have been left out of a settlement that was accepted by the others. Is it the Government view that the overseas telegraph people have been treated already on all fours with the others, or are they trying to catch up?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I forgot to answer Lord Trefgarne's second point about the Signals Corps of the Army. I am afraid I have nothing to say on that at the moment. I think it would be dangerous for me to comment on that type of suggestion at the moment.
I must make very clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that the overseas telegraph operators have not been left out. They are merely dissatisfied with the terms they have been offered. When I say "merely", perhaps that is not the right word; but the offer that was made to them was, in the view of the Government, entirely consistent with other offers that have been made to other telephone and postal workers. In this case they were offered 5 per cent. plus a 2 per cent. productivity rise related to particular improvements in productivity. Without being drawn into great detail, I may say 1295 that there is a particular argument with regard to one type of productivity equipment which has been in use in the past, and it is on this that the area of dispute rests. There is a genuine difference of opinion on this point, but they certainly have not been left out.