THE POSTAL SERVICE (Hansard, 2 July 1979)

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
"In the middle of last week the Post Office had a backlog of one-and-a-third days' mail. This comprised some 40 million letters. This was the cumulative effect of industrial action in the Post Office; and on the railways; bad weather earlier in the year; staff shortages, and letter bombs in Birmingham. The worst effects have been in the London area.
"Over the weekend there was extensive working to reduce this backlog, and I welcome these efforts. But while improvements were made, some problems remain, particularly in parts of London and the South-East. Continued efforts will be necessary.
"Although I recognise that special circumstances, some of them beyond the Post Office's immediate control, played a considerable part in last week's difficulties, these problems have only confirmed that much needs to be done to improve the efficiency and productivity of the postal service, and I have made this clear to the chairman of the Post Office, for whom I have great respect. I am particularly disappointed that an offer by the Post Office of better pay for reduced costs, higher productivity and better services has been refused by the workforce.
34 "If co-operation to improve services is not manifest, it will be necessary to review the Post Office's monopoly for the carriage of letters. I shall be asking for reports on possible modifications, their practicability and their implications, to reach me before the end of this year."

§ Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which is being made in another place by the Secretary of State. I felt that, on the whole, it was rather an ungracious Statement, bearing in mind the fact that thousands of postal workers worked very long hours over the weekend, after a long week of work, in order to clear the backlog of the mails. The present situation, as the noble Lord has said, is the cumulative effect of a number of factors coming together. Perhaps the most important of these was the closure of the Birmingham sorting office during the past few weeks. I understand that only today, for the first time, was this office opened fully. This has meant that mail has had to be sorted in all kinds of inconvenient and unsuitable places in Birmingham, such as in drill halls. This is important, as that particular sorting office is the fifth largest office in the country.
The threatening statement made by the Secretary of State in the last paragraph of his Statement concerning the monopoly of the Post Office is rather curious in some ways. One remembers that the last time this monopoly was broken, in 1971, the private operators were only too anxious that the postal services should resume. Indeed, the Economist commented on 20th February 1971: Most groups of private postmen have shown a conspicuous lack of business enterprise. Most groups are only going to be too thankful to pack up when the postmen are back". Indeed, one heard stories that the mails that they could not deliver eventually landed up in the post boxes.
My Lords, I think we should remember that the postal service is a service for us all, and if there is no monopoly the rural areas will certainly suffer. The Post Office can only operate a successful service if it has a monopoly. Despite their past inability to function adequately, private 35 operators would certainly focus their activities on city centres, as has happened in the United States of America and in Canada, with a detrimental effect on rural areas and also an adverse effect on postal rates. We should remember that even with the proposed increase in postal rates our postal services are the cheapest, bar one, in Europe at the present time.
I very much regret that the Secretary of State should have included in his Statement the paragraph about breaking the monopoly, because I feel that this will have the effect of undermining the morale of postal workers, who are working very long hours to see that the public get their mail as quickly as possible.

§ Baroness SEEAR
My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. We have always been particularly concerned with the interests of consumers in the Post Office, and, as noble Lords will remember, during the last Administration we pressed successfully for the inclusion of consumer representatives on the Post Office Board.
While making all allowances for the fact that the bombing in Birmingham has affected the present situation, I think nobody can really pretend that the consumer is being adequately served, and we have to remember that practically every adult in this country is affected by the efficiency of the Post Office in one way or another. There could hardly be a service in which a higher proportion of the population is involved. While reserving judgment on the question as to whether or not the monopoly should be broken, we must agree with the Government that it is necessary that this situation should not continue. We are glad that they are going to follow the situation very closely and I would remind the Government that the full report of the Carter Commission has not been implemented at the present time.

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their welcome, in varying degrees, for the Statement. I hope that the noble Lord, 36 Lord Ponsonby, will not take the concluding paragraph of the Statement to be threatening. I do not think it is intended so to be. I think that what my right honourable friend is seeking to do is to improve the service upon which, as has been pointed out, we are all dependent. The Government wish to examine every possibility of improving that service and they do not wish to rule out the possibility of excluding the monopoly in certain circumstances, if indeed that monopoly needs to be changed in some way. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was firm in her support for our efforts on behalf of the Post Office. We thank her for that support and also for her support in keeping the mind of the Government flexible upon any ways which can improve the service.

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, the Statement refers to industrial disputes and also to the inability to get workers. Surely that indicates that there is at least a prima facie case for an inquiry into wages and conditions in the Post Office. Would it not have been much more useful to take that kind of action rather than to threaten the breaking of the monopoly?

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, I hope, once again, that there were no implicit threats, but I should like to stress to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that three months ago he was asking about the pay of postal workers in that particular part of the service. Three months ago the Post Office offered a pay increase of 9 per cent. plus a further 4½ per cent. which was to be paid for by way of three particular items. This package was successfully negotiated with the postal workers' executive but it was rejected by five to one by the union membership. Negotiations are still continuing. We believe that the offer that has been made is certainly generous and I wonder whether, in the light of that generous offer, an inquiry is called for at this stage.

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, does the fact that the wage offer was rejected by five to one not show that there is widespread dissatisfaction within the ranks of the postal workers and that some investigation is needed?

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, we believe that negotiations should be continued with the postal workers, but with the executive. I believe that if any investigation needs to be carried out it should be carried out within the union of postal workers and not within the Post Office as a whole.

§ Lord MERRIVALE
My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, bearing in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, regarding the good work of the postal workers this last weekend with the view to clearing the backlog of mail, is it intended that postal workers should be employed during other weekends and, if so, when does he feel that the backlog will be cleared? Secondly, if in effect the monopoly is broken, would private enterprise be involved in the dispatch and receipt of mail from abroad?

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for those two questions. I do not think that the Government, or indeed the Post Office, can give any firm reply as to whether it is the intention of the Post Office to employ postal workers for further extensive hours of overtime during the next three of four weekends. I hope the Post Office will do what it deems necessary to clear the backlog. That may involve some overtime or it may not.
With regard to the second question asked by my noble friend Lord Merrivale with regard to the possible ending of the monopoly over some sectors of the postal service, I think the only good answer that I can give is that we shall have to wait and see what turns out in 1981 when my right honourable friend has received reports from all sectors of the Post Office.

§ Lord DERWENT
My Lords, is not the principal trouble that the general public are fed up to the teeth with the rapidly deteriorating service? They would not mind the increased charges so much if the service were better, but they do mind the increased charges when the service is getting rapidly much worse.

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, I would take issue slightly with my noble friend. I agree that the service appears to be worse in some areas, but I think that 38 overall the service is exceptional. Personally, I have found that during the past week letters with first-class stamps have reached me in your Lordships' House, and indeed elsewhere in London, within 24 hours. There have been difficulties and there have been many complaints, but I do not think that that is a general aspect of the Post Office. Nevertheless, I take the point made by my noble friend.

§ Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will not forget, and we should not forget, that until the recent problems the Post Office had been achieving over 80 per cent. next-day delivery for first-class mail, and that is an infinitely higher percentage than is achieved in France or Germany.

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and I take his point; but of course all Members of your Lordships' House will be aware that your Lordships—and indeed members of the public—obtain what we pay for.

§ Lord MERRIVALE
My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, bear in mind the poor service given by the second-class mail?

§ Lord SOMERS
My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is essential that the postal service should be kept as a unified whole, have the Government given any consideration to the possibility of separating the telephone service from the postal service, and, if so, what does the noble Lord think the benefits would be?

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, so far as the Government are concerned, I am sure they are considering every form of improvement of the Post Office as a whole. I do not think it would be for me to comment at this stage on any possibilities or probabilities of separation or otherwise of the telecommunications industry from the Post Office as a whole.