§ 3.8 p.m.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve of the question asked of all applicants for any employment in the Post Office, namely "Have you at any time been convicted or found guilty of any offence by any court or court martial (even if you were only put on probation or absolutely or conditionally discharged or bound over after being charged with any offence)?" and, if not, whether the Minister will consult with the Post Office in accordance with Section 11(2) of the Post Office Act 1969.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to approve or disapprove of measures taken by the Post Office within the framework of existing laws to check the background of applicants for employment. This must be a matter for the Post Office itself.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that subsection (2) of Section 11 of the Post Office Act provides, inter alia, that if it appears to the Minister that there is a defect in the arrangements of the Post Office he may consult them with a view to getting the defect remedied? And is it not clearly a defect in the Post Office's arrangements for the engagement of staff that applicants are required to answer, for example, whether they have 30 years ago been convicted of careless driving, which would have no relevance for somebody applying for a job as a clerk in the Post Office? Furthermore, the form apparently contains no assurance that the information which applicants are required to give will not be passed on to third parties.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, as I said to the noble and learned Lord in my original reply, I do not think it is for me to comment on what the Post Office judges it suitable to know about applicants for employment. But I would, in order to try to be helpful to the noble and learned Lord, say that Post Office practice in composing application for employment forms broadly parallels that followed in the Civil Service, and I believe that most noble Lords will welcome that. As to the first part of the noble and learned Lord's supplementary, it is true that the section which the noble and learned Lord mentioned allows the Minister to give the Post Office general directions to remedy defects in its arrangements, but it is most unlikely that a direction to cease asking this specific question could be given. As the employment of its staff and their suitability for employment must, as I said, be a matter for the Post Office, it would be inappropriate for the Minister to intervene.
§ LORD WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, bearing in mind that the Post Office is a public corporation and is to some extent responsible to both your Lordships' House and another place, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will suggest to the Post Office that when they are considering an application for employment from somebody who has been on probation they might do what is done by some commanding officers in the Services and write to the probation officer for a report on how that person went through his probation period?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I have absolutely no doubt that the Post Office itself will take account of what the noble Lord has said.
§ BARONESS BIRKMy Lords, if we are not going to get any further information about the Post Office, and as the noble Earl has said that these questions are based on what is asked of applicants for the Civil Service, may I ask whether we can be told—I do not necessarily expect the noble Earl to tell us now—how this information is used, and whether the question is put in this way in all Civil Service applications? If the answer is "Yes" to any of these questions, is the person then turned down? If we cannot have a straight answer on the Post 1462 Office, may we have it on the analogy on which the noble Earl himself said the Post Office form was based?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I apologise for my denseness, but I did not quite follow the noble Baroness when she referred to an analogy in this connection. Could she perhaps be a little clearer on that point?
§ BARONESS BIRKMy Lords, I understood the noble Earl to say that the practice of the Post Office is based on what is done in the Civil Service. What I am asking is: if we cannot elicit facts on the Post Office, may we have some facts relating to the pattern in the Civil Service which, in the noble Earl's own words, appears to be the pattern on which the Post Office bases its practice?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I said that the practice broadly parallels that followed in the Civil Service. I sympathise with the noble Baroness, as I sympathise with any noble Lord who wishes to question any Minister about a public body—the Post Office, the B.B.C., a nationalised industry or whatever it may be. But what I have to say to that is that they must take up such inquiries with the bodies themselves.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware, if he says that he is a bit dense, that denseness is a most valuable protection to Ministers in a difficult situation? Perhaps I may also say that it is an expression which I do not believe could apply to him. Will he consider, possibly in consultation with his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, whether perhaps some of this information with regard to the public service might be given? May I also ask him whether he is aware that although this is a difficult question, the Government have other means of satisfying themselves than requiring people to answer questions which may be very discouraging and may, indeed, lose them good applicants?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition can see, my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is a great deal less dense than I am, is sitting beside me and I am sure he will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SHIN WELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether his refusal to comment on behalf of his Ministry on what the Post Office say or do is initiating a new line of policy? Is he aware that Ministers are entitled to exert their authority over all nationalised industries and corporations, such as the Post Office, if it is a matter of general policy? And is not a question of this kind related to general policy, to general behaviour? What kind of enunciation are we getting from Ministers nowadays? Why are they so reluctant to intervene in the interests of the general public?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, the noble Lord has on many occasions interested himself in this House—and very valuably—on questions of security. All I said in my original Answer was that questions of the security of the Post Office, which are very important indeed, are matters for the Post Office.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, this is a most remarkable situation. I myself had to answer questions about nationalised industries when I was a Minister. Are we to understand now that everybody who applies for employment in a nationalised industry is to be asked questions which appear to relate to security?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I think that question goes fairly considerably wide of the noble and learned Lord's Question. But, again, to try to be helpful, I would say to the noble Lord that there is no statutory limitation, as he knows, on the way the Post Office conducts its own security investigations as existing law provides, and the Government's main concern must be with the statutory conditions under which the Post Office operates.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, would not the Post Office be doing a far better job if they decided to speed up the delivery of letters, rather than to ask stupid questions?
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, is not the short point that the Post Office is not a nationalised industry and works under different rules of responsibility?
§ VISCOUNT AMORYMy Lords, will my noble friend also bear in mind that some of us with rather long memories can remember some years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was responsible 1464 for nationalised industries, that if we pressed him too hard on these matters we were seen off pretty smartly?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, will the noble Earl also bear in mind that the Opposition have a duty, since the Government are so rarely allowed to say anything which gives any information?
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, I think we have had a very full discussion on this Question, and that we might move on to the next Question.