§ 3.47 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, with the permission of the House I will now repeat an Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. It is as follows:
"Having concluded that it is in the best interests of the Post Office and public, I have asked Lord Hall to relinquish his post as Chairman of the Corporation. He has agreed to do so.
"There have been no major disagreements between Lord Hall and myself on matters of policy. Lord Hall 145 is leaving forthwith and will receive compensation for loss of office. Mr. Ryland, Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of the Post Office, will act as Chairman pending the appointment of a successor to Lord Hall."
My Lords, that completes my right honourable friend's Answer.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I should like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his courtesy in repeating the Statement that has been made in the other place. I shall have some questions to ask him arising out of it, but before I do so I should like, with the leave of the House, to pay a short tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, since one was not contained in the Ministerial Statement. We on this side of the House know the noble Viscount as a friend and as a colleague, and I am sure he is known to noble Lords in all parts of the House as a friend as well.
Since his appointment in May last year Lord Hall has done much to put the Corporation on to a profitable basis, and to raise the morale of the staff. Have Her Majesty's Government seen, for example, this morning that 3,000 Post Office workers are on a token strike? Have the Government considered the effect on morale of this peremptory dismissal? Why, for example, was it announced in the early hours of the morning? Do the Government not consider that this is an affront to Parliament? If there have been no major disagreements over policy, what have the disagreements been about? I should also like to ask for an assurance that the Post Office Act will not be altered to deny to the Corporation the right to manufacture, and to hive-off to private enterprise some of the Corporation's more profitable manufacturing industries.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I also thank the Minister for repeating that very important statement? I was under the impression that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was doing quite a good job as Chairman of the Post Office, but the impression conveyed by the statement is that Lord Hall is being dismissed for incompetence. If this is so, why is compensation being paid? If it is not for incompetence, and since compensation is being paid, I assume that this is a political dismissal. If it is a political 146 dismissal, and not for incompetence, is not this a very dangerous precedent indeed?
LORD WINIDLESHAMMy Lords, I have been asked a number of questions from the Opposition Front Bench and from the Leader of the Liberal Party. The first question put by 'the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was about the effect on morale. I can only repeat the words of the statement issued last night, that my right honourable friend believes that it is in the best interests of the Post Office to make a change in the chairmanship. The noble Lord asked me about the timing, and why the statement was made late last night. The reason is that a statement had originally been arranged for to-day, but in view of the widespread rumours that were circulating last night it was thought to be in the best interests of all concerned that an immediate announcement should be made. I do not think the question the noble Lord asked me about the Post Office Act arises out of the statement which has been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked about political considerations. There is no question here of political victimisation. I should like to make that quite plain, as will my right honourable friend in another place. We have never regarded Lord Hall as a political figure, or as actuated by political motives, or as having been appointed for political reasons. Compensation is being discussed with him and the terms are still being negotiated.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the Minister's opinion. Can he say whether the Minister consulted with the Board prior to this decision being taken? Can he also say whether Lord Hall had lost the confidence of the Board? May I also ask whether there is any truth in the report that Lord Hall had a meeting with the Minister yesterday, lasting I think one hour, during which the noble Viscount asked repeatedly for reasons for this dismissal but was not given one? Will the noble Lord confirm whether or not that is right? In conclusion, may I ask whether, when this statement was issued to the Press last night, there was a Press conference? I suspect that there was, because part of the noble Viscount's statement appears in this morning's newspapers. The noble 147 Lord, Lord Windlesham, will be aware that, side by side with that, there were references to the effect that the noble Viscount did not match up to the job. Would the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, deny that this was given to the Press?—because if it was I think it is one of the most wicked treatments of a very faithful public servant.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I understand that my right honourable friend did not consult the Board. He took this decision on his own responsibility. I understand that the decision has been accepted by the remaining members of the Board. I am not able to say what took place at the meeting between the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the Minister yesterday, and I am not able to say what, if anything, was said to the Press.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether a reason was given to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for his dismissal?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I am not able to add to my answer.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I press the noble Lord on this question of political dismissal? He has vehemently denied that this is a political dismissal, but what is meant by "in the best interests of the Post Office"? Does it mean incompetence?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it is the judgment of the Minister that it is in the best interests of the Post Office and the public that a change should be made.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, will my noble friend recognise that the political affiliations of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, have absolutely nothing to do with this case? Also, is it not a fact that any Government, of whatever Party, must have their hands free to appoint, as heads of public corporations, the persons whom they think are most suitable? Finally, is it not a fact that any action which is likely to improve the efficient working of these public corporations is to be welcomed?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMYes, my Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships would agree with that.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the action which the Minister has taken on this occasion has created within the Post Office a situation where the people engaged in it feel most bitterly? This has been exemplified by the question asked by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Is the Minister aware that I was deeply shocked, as one who was partly responsible for the appointment of Lord Hall, when I saw the announcement to the effect that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications had brought about the dismissal? And is he further aware that the appointment was for a period of five years and not for eighteen months? Also, is the noble Lord aware that the experience of Lord Hall within the Post Office ranges not from the time when the Board was set up, but from six months prior to that when he was able to meet members of the Post Office Board under ministerial control?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I would not agree with the first statement made by the noble Lord. Secondly, the period of appointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, as Chairman of the Post Office Corporation is terminable by agreement.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the Post Office has for years been run extremely efficiently by the officials of the Post Office, irrespective of the abilities or deficiencies of the Postmaster General or Assistant Postmaster General of the day? Also, will my noble friend consider asking his right honourable friend whether it would not be best, in the interests of the Post Office of the future to put Mr. Ryland permanently in charge?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I think that my right honourable friend will want to take account of that statement which has been made by the noble Lord.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there are any more sackings to take place? Can we know now?
§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will answer the question which my noble friend Lord Shinwell has put? Further, while associating myself entirely with the statements made by my noble 149 friend Lord Strabolgi, may I ask the Minister whether he really feels that this matter can rest on a statement of the character which he has made this afternoon? Is he aware that in the period since the noble Viscount became Chairman of the Corporation he has, despite many difficulties, won great respect and confidence from Post Office staff? Does the noble Lord and his right honourable friend in another place recognise the importance for the Post Office, and so for the community, of confidence on the part of the staff of the Post Office in the management of the Post Office and in the way in which the management and administration is treated by Her Majesty's Government?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, my Parliamentary experience is so short compared with that of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that I should not dream of trying to identify a question which actually requires an answer and which is seeking information from one which is really a statement of the noble Lord's point of view, but I should have thought that what he has said came in the second category rather than in the first. I have no information that the Minister is considering any further terminations of appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked whether the reasons given by the Minister were adequate for the action that he had taken, and whether it would be damaging to the confidence and the morale of the Post Office Corporation. My Lords, it is very easy for Governments to shirk decisions of this kind that they believe to be necessary in the public interest. The Government have a responsibility for appointing the members and the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation, as with other public bodies. My right honourable friend has made it clear that political motivation does not enter into this—I underline that. The reason is that in the Minister's opinion—and he has a responsibility under the Post Office Act—this action is in the best interests of the Post Office and the public.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, does the noble Lord realise that in ordinary life in this country an action of this description would not be taken, even by the smallest firm, and that in consequence the action of the Government will be 150 strongly resented throughout the country? Will he please give a satisfactory reason why, at practically a moment's notice, art action of this description was taken?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it is not for me to comment on an action that would be taken by private companies or public companies, and I cannot add to the reasons that have been given.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, would the noble Lord confirm an answer which he gave four supplementaries ago, that the terms of the appointment were for five years or terminable by agreement?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, any appointment of this sort is terminable by agreement within the period, and this appointment has been terminated by agreement.
§ LORD MAELORMy Lords, is the Minister aware that when I spoke in this House last week—a week yesterday—I made two particular observations? This was one of them:
The Tory Party is a class-conscious party …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/11/70, col. 1040.]This was the other—
§ LORD MAELORVery well; you will have it.
The Tory philosophy is based entirely on class distinction …The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, did not agree with me, so I knew I was right. I contend, Mr. Minister—
§ LORD MAELORThen let me ask the Minister this question. Had this man, Lord Hall, been a coal-owner's son and not a coalminer's son, would he have had the sack? Of course not! And answer Lord Byers, for goodness' sake!
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord has not only asked a question but given the answer for me as well; but I can assure him that class consciousness had no part in this.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been widespread public disquiet about the Post Office for many years, and that when a Postmaster-General is appointed he is expected, at any rate by those on these Benches, to govern?
§ LORD SHINWELLI am sorry to pursue this matter, but is it not possible that a mistake occurred: that the intention was to sack Lord Robens, and the names got mixed up?
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, may I ask one further question; that is, how the Minister squares his statement that this appointment was terminated by agreement with the fact that on the news on the radio this morning Lord Hall was reported as saying that he did not agree with the termination and that he was going to consult his lawyers?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the Minister has powers under the Post Office Act 1969, Section 6(3) and (4), and Schedule 1, paragraph 5(1). He has not used these powers. The appointment of the noble Lord has been terminated by agreement and compensation is being discussed. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that this is one way in which appointments are terminated. To use powers under Statutes is another.
EARL JELLICOEI recognise that this is a contentious decision, but I think it is within our normal practice that we do not turn a statement and the supplementaries following a statement into a debate. If noble Lords opposite wish to debate this question at a later date, of course time will be provided; but we have a great many speakers on our main Motion to-day, and I think it would be in accordance with our normal practice now to proceed with our debate.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I do not wish to prolong matters, but will the noble Earl the Leader of the House take note that a statement such as this, which merely says that "it is in the best interests" of the Corporation that something 152 should happen, is not dealing fairly with the House?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I of course take note of what the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Opposition has said, and this is a matter which could very well be debated if necessary.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, would the noble Earl—
§ LORD SLATERNo: let us be fair about this. I know too much about this for many noble Lords.
§ LORD SLATERNever mind about "shame!". I am speaking as one who has had some experience in the Post Office, which other people have not. Would the Minister, in reply to his noble friend Lord Alport, remind him and the Members of this House that there is not only one Deputy Chairman attached to that Board, but that there are two, and that Mr. Whitney Straight, of Rolls Royce, is the second Deputy Chairman? Why should we get a question directed to the Minister to-day suggesting that Mr. Ryland should take over the duties of Lord Hall as Chairman of the Board in view of there being two Deputy Chairmen?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMIt is very unusual, my Lords, for noble Lords not to take the advice of the Leader of the House, and I do not think that I should add to what I have said.
§ LORD SLATERRunning away!