HC Deb 28 January 1969 vol 776 cc303-4W
Mr. Dobson

asked the Postmaster-General why the Post Office refuses to apply the same productivity bargaining arrangement which have already been agreed for Post Office telephonists to the overseas telegraph operators.

Mr. Stonehouse

The productivity payment offered is in fact very similar to that agreed for telephonists and is based on the same principles. There is no fundamental difference between the two cases, both being based on the same principles which are of course consistent with the Government's incomes policy.

Mr. Dobson

asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to end the present dispute between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office in overseas telegraphs.

Mr. Stonehouse

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on 27th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 1012–68.]

Mr. Dobson

asked the Postmaster-General why the Post Office refuses to pay a 5 per cent. increase to overseas telegraph operators and enter into separate discussions on productivity within the overseas telegraph service.

Mr. Stonehouse

I have offered the Union a settlement based on a 5 per cent. increase from last July with a further 2 per cent. linked to the acceptance of the early introduction of measures designed to increase productivity. The Union's proposal would at best involve delaying the productivity measures for several months and would give no guarantee that we should secure them at all. I am anxious to secure the early introduction of these changes, which would not only increase productivity but would also bring about much needed improvements in the quality of the public service.

Mr. Dobson

asked the Postmaster-General why the introduction of certain equipment and procedures at Electra House, which it is estimated will save over £500,000 annually, and some 350 out of the present 2,000 staff posts, is not accepted by his Department as a basis for an accurately-costed productivity agreement with the Union.

Mr. Stonehouse

The claim is in respect of some 4,000 staff, not 2,000. An offer has been made by my Department to the Union of Post Office Workers in respect of the estimated saving of some 200 staff from the introduction of new procedures; this offer includes provision for costing the savings. The other savings of staff would result from the reintroduction of a system which was in operation when the pay of these grades was last reviewed and which is, therefore, already reflected in their current pay.