Letter Post Monopoly (Hansard, 10 October 1988)

§ The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham)
My Lords, the possibility of ending or modifying the letter monopoly is kept under review, but we have currently no firm plans to make any changes.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that during the recent strike many large companies and corporations were able to continue much of their business by means of facsimiles and other facilities, and that those who suffered most were small firms and the general public? No benefit appears to have been gained by either party in the dispute.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I am very well aware of the great dislocation which the recent strike caused to small businesses. We all greatly regret that. I hope very much that those who work in the Post Office will take that into account in the future.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, can we take it from the reply of the noble Lord that, in line with what the Prime Minister has said, the Royal Mail is safe in her hands?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Royal Mail may not be safe in the hands of those who work in the Post Office unless they are prepared to exercise their sense of responsibility to businesses both great and small, in the country.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is it not wrong in principle that a monopoly should be held by a public service which has no no-strike agreement and which therefore leaves the public wholly vulnerable to such action?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, since 1981 the monopoly has extended only to letters priced below£1. We shall have to keep our options open. The situation depends very much on the conduct of the Post Office in the future.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the cause of the strike was the failure of the management to attract staff in areas which badly needed them? Moreover, does the Minister also agree that it might have been wise for the management to confer with the unions involved in order to try to find a solution and thus avoid a strike? The strike was caused by myopic arrogance.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I should hate to describe the unions in those terms.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the rate of increase in postal charges is so fast that the£1 cover will not last very long?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, the£1 cover has lasted for some considerable time. I live in hope that, by looking to its efficiency, the Post Office will ensure that it lasts a great deal longer.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, will the noble Lord say what steps he is taking to improve efficiency and labour relations so that the public may receive the service it used to have?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, that is very much a matter for the management of the Post Office, who are well aware that their future and the future of the service depend upon their continuing to deliver a service. That depends upon their ensuring not only that they have the right relationships with those who work in the Post Office but also that the service is run efficiently.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that by and large the public is far from satisfied with the quality of service which it receives from this monopoly? Would he be able to go a little further with regard to the nature of the review so as to consider whether the monopoly should continue without any form of no-strike clause?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am well aware and my postbag provided ample evidence of the considerable public dissatisfaction with the quality of the service provided by the Post Office. Although expressions of dissatisfaction died down during the progress of the strike, since it ended my postbag has been full again. We are keeping the whole conduct of the business under continuing review. I think that we had better see how the service performs in the months to come.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there was serious myopia on the part of management, who acted in an arrogant manner, and that the strike was not the fault of the unions? Is he also aware that if there had been consultations there might well not have been a strike? On behalf of all of us will he try to see the management of the Post Office to ask that in future when there are problems of this nature normal civilised British joint negotiations take place?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I suspect that the causes of the strike were far more complex than the noble Lord describes. I am very content to leave the management of the Post Office to the Post Office. It will be judged by the service it provides and we shall have to see what happens in the future.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to correct an omission in my first supplementary question to the noble Lord; namely, to welcome the Clerk of the Parliaments back to the Table after his absence.
Can the noble Lord say what objective evidence there is that the public is dissatisfied with the service provided by the Post Office?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord does not receive the same postbag as I receive. If that postbag is any indication of the level of complaint on the part of the public, there is considerable public dissatisfaction with the service of the Post Office. It was of course occasioned by the strike. I have little doubt that the service will improve in the future, and that indeed is the business of the management of the Post Office.