In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "set off" ["set off any sums due to the Postmaster-General"], and to insert instead thereof the word "treat."

I beg to move, after the word "development" ["with a view to the development of that part"] to insert the words "in rural as well as urban areas."

There is really no object in inserting these words. The Clause, as it stands, carries out the object which the hon. Member has in view.

With all respect to the Assistant-Postmaster-General I could point out that I have a further Amendment which specifies the exact proportion which should be devoted to telephonic extension in the rural areas, and that if these words are not inserted, I shall not be able to move that Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I understand that the hon. Member refers to Clause 5?

I am in a little difficulty about that because there are Amendments put down to Clause 5; but if you will allow me to move this Motion before the first Amendment is put, I do not want to prevent the Government getting Clause 4.

I was only going to suggest that we should take Clause 4, and then I will put the hon. Member's Motion that Progress be reported.

I now move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

It may save time in the discussion of some of the Amendments if I tell the Committee the position; of this matter. We took what was in effect a Second Reading Debate on the Financial Resolutions. The House will remember that on those Financial Resolutions in June last I put forward several claims on behalf of the staff. I think it will be agreed that those claims were put forward without undue heat and with a desire to meet the views of the Postmaster-General Then negotiations took place between the staff and the Postmaster-General, and I was enabled on the Second Reading of the Bill to allow it to pass without a Division, and to inform the House that I thought the result of those negotiations would be that the claims of the staff would be met by the Postmaster-General. I am sorry to say that the claims, in our opinion, have not been satisfactorily met. The Postmaster-General received, I believe, two deputations from the staff, and some minor points have been met, but there is one main point as to which I think it would be very detrimental in the future if we have to divide upon it. The Postmaster-General is taking over a very large staff of 18,000 men, and for the future working of the Post Office it would be very much better that we should not divide upon the claims which the staff make, but that they should come to terms with the Postmaster-General without the hostile intervention of this House. But unless those claims are met more closely than at present there must be hostile intervention by this House.

I must remind the hon. Member that this discussion is on the Motion to report Progress. I do not know whether this explanation has any bearing on that, and if he is arguing on the Amendment which follows he is not in order in doing so on this Motion.

I am entirely in your hands, Sir, but I may explain that my object was to save myself making two speeches. I will not argue the case now, but will merely state what these claims are, and if the Motion to report Progress should not be carried, I will establish what I am saying as to the evidence of the Select Committee and Lord Stanley's speeches in this House. The point is that the members of the staff who have had pensionable services under the company should be transferred to pensionable service under the Post Office. That has been put before the Postmaster-General, and I believe he would be prepared to accept it if he could do so himself. Many of the other cases have been met, and now there are only 400 men left in this position of not having had their rights conceded. All these pensionable servants of the Telephone Company have been accepted by the Postmaster-General. But if it was not 400, if it was only forty, or even four, who were going to have different positions forced upon them from those to which they are entitled, we should be right to place their case before the House. I may call attention to a letter which the Postmaster-General wrote yesterday to the staff. It is not confidential, and was in reply to a deputation which waited upon him. It has reference to these 400 men, and he says the question of a transfer of a proportion of these officers is still under discussion with the Treasury, and he hopes it may be possible to make such provision for these sections of the company's staff as will establish practically all such persons on the pension fund.

I should like to explain to the Committee the precise situation in which this matter now stands in order to persuade Members that there can be no justification for the Motion to report Progress. In taking over a large staff numbering some 18,000 people there are, of course, a great number of points to be settled. Lord Stanley, in 1905, laid down the general conditions under which these men should be taken into the service of the State. I have considerably modified these conditions in very many respects and in all of them in favour of the staff. I have been in close consultation with the representatives of the staff. They are very representative and capable men, and on several occasions we have come to agreement, I think, on all the points except perhaps two, the chief one being that mentioned by the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). The question is whether persons now pensionable with the company shall be pensionable with the State. Without going into the merits, let me explain how very small a point it is, and the difference between those who are in the service of the company and who are pensionable and those who are in the service of the Post Office and are pensionable. The servants of the company are pensionable if they have a salary of more than £100 per year, and contribute 2½ per cent. of their wages to the company's funds. They are pensionable at a certain age. The servants of the State who are pensionable, if they belong to an established class. The established classes are differentiated from the unestablished by a very complicated series of rules, into which I do not intend to enter. It is enough to say that they do not have any relation to the £100 limit fixed under the company. Therefore a person may be pensionable in the service of the company and not be pensionable while doing the same work in the Post Office or vice versâ. The company has 18,000 people employed and of these 2,000 are on the pension fund. Sixteen thousand are not pensionable.

On the point of Order, Sir. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I was stopped from arguing the merits of the case. If the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to do so—and I hope you will allow him to argue the merits on the Motion to report Progress—will other Members be allowed to discuss them?

On the point of Order, may I explain? My point is to show the reason why we cannot and ought not to report Progress. The hon. Member has urged that this is a matter which could easily be settled with a very little consideration. I may point out that it is not a matter which merely affects the 300 men in the Telephone Company's service whom we are taking over, but it affects 5,000 men now in the Post Office service doing the same work as these 300 men, whose case is still under consideration. That is a matter which the Treasury is considering. It is a very large financial question indeed, because if we were to do as the representatives of the staff desire we should have to alter our Post Office system. I do not say it ought not to be altered. I do not say that some alteration is not desirable, but I do say that it is a matter which has very large financial results as to which we will have to work out an elaborate scheme. The simple matter is that if these 5,000 men are to be established, there are various details which will have to be gone into, and it would be an exceedingly complicated matter.

On the point of Order which was raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). It is true that I interrupted him and stopped his arguing the question on the merits, and I did so because I questioned whether his observations were relevant to the Motion to report Progress. The Postmaster-General is now making his reply, and the point is whether his argument has relevance to the Motion to report Progress. I think the right hon. Gentleman's argument has some reference to that Motion.

In that case, if I submit any further argument that is relevant to the right hon. Gentleman's statement and to the Motion, I may be allowed to speak again.

I will hear the hon. Member.

As I was pointing out, this question relates to 300 men in the Telephone Company's service, and to 5,000 men in the Post Office service, and the matter is therefore not so easily decided by myself in consultation with the able representatives of the transferred staff. Let me say, further—I cannot go into the merits now, that I shall be able to show that we are not leaving these men whom we are taking over from the Telephone Company any worse off than they are now in any respect. On the contrary, in many respects they will be better off. I cannot argue that now, but I will argue it later on. I do not at all admit the hon. Member's contention that they will be worse off. We are making special arrangements, into the details of which I cannot enter now. Finally, let me say that it is not necessary in regard to this Bill to have this matter settled now. No legislation is required to put these men on the establishment. It can be done administratively; it does not require Parliamentary powers or any statutory powers. Indeed, it would be improper to insert in the Bill this Amendment which the hon. Member suggests, and which would not allow any discretion to the Postmaster-General to do anything at all. If we deal with the Amendment, I think I shall be able to show that these men are treated very generously under the transfer.

I desire to support the Motion to report Progress, not only in the interests of the whole staff of the Telephone Company throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly the Irish staff. As an Irish Member, I have some little knowledge of the conditions under which the Irish staff at present works. The Postmaster-General himself has afforded the very best reason for this Motion in the remarks which he has made. He tells us that this is only a question of 300 men. We heard at an earlier stage that £4,000,000 are asked to amplify and enlarge the scope of telephone work, and that there is to be an enlarged system of State control which is going to take the place of the system hitherto worked by the Telephone Company. It is not too much to suggest to the Committee that these unfortunate 300 men certainly hope to carry on the work in which they have been engaged for a very considerable portion of their lives, and that, when they come under the State they will have those pensionable rights which they enjoy under the Telephone Company. The Mover of the Motion to report Progress put his finger on the real difficulty in this case. We recognise the ability, the patience and the courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has from beginning to end approached these negotiations. I am sure that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman would wish, even if he had the power, under the scheme of amalgamation, would be to do anything that would prejudice the position of the workers under the Telephone Company. But surely that is the very reason why a few months should be given, on the one hand to the right hon. Gentleman, and on the other to the staff, to discuss these questions, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out are of so exceedingly narrow a character. Previous speakers have shown that the real reason of this difficulty is, of course, to be found in the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the left of the Postmaster-General (the Financial Secretary to the Treasury). It is the Treasury which has to be dealt with, and I see in the right hon. Gentleman the mobile embodiment of national economy. I tried to shake the right hon. Gentleman myself even this week, but I was unable to do it. I have not myself the powers of persuasion that can be exercised by the Postmaster-General, who may succeed in persuading the Treasury where a private Member such as myself cannot hope to succeed. Members on the Irish Benches all know well that the Chief Secretary on many occasions in relation to Irish financial questions has found himself up against the same impenetrable wall. I only mention these things in passing with a view to emphasising the fact that these are all reasons for delaying this case. Nobody suggests that the Postmaster-General will be prejudiced if the master is hung up for two or three months. He admits himself that the main portions of the matter have already been dealt with by an agreement entered into two years ago with the National Telephone Company, and in regard to this remaining point I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his courtesy and desire to meet the staff, will recognise that the time ought to be a little extended for its consideration. It is for that reason that I very cordially support the Motion of my hon. Friend, and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not force this matter to a Division to-day, but will give us all the opportunity during the leisure months which some of us hope to enjoy to consider these matters, which axe of so small a character. There was one other matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He suggested that the one reason for the impossibility of acceding to the request of these telephone operators is that objection would be taken that they would come in side by side with members of the Post Office staff who are already at work of a similar character. I can quite recognise the natural disinclination of old workers in the Post Office that any newcomers should come in and take their place. I suggest it is not a case of taking any place of others. We all hope that this scheme will be of a large and successful character under the able administration and guidance of the right hon. Gentleman, and that the telephone service, as we knew it of old, and I say no more about it, will become a thing that we will all enjoy in the future, and that it will not be a source of worry as it has been in the past, or, in other words, that the scheme will become so large that it will not be a case of the taking of 300 men, but the taking of thousands of men. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of all parties, not to press this Motion to a Division.

If I may be allowed to speak again on this question, I may perhaps shorten discussion. I perceive that it is the general desire of the House that a further attempt should be made to arrive at a settlement of this one outstanding point. It would be very unfortunate if this Bill were to become a matter of controversy when it has hitherto proceeded very smoothly. I am at the same time very unwilling to put off the Bill until the Autumn for certain reasons connected with the smooth passage of the Bill. I would make this suggestion to the Committee that we should postpone Clause 5 now, and that we should to-day take the other Clauses of the Bill, and in the interval allowed, and there is a Conference already arranged with the Treasury, I would confer with my right hon. Friend and the Treasury to see whether we can come to some settlement of this outstanding point. Should a settlement be reached within the next few days, then perhaps the Bill can go through as an agreed Bill in a short time one evening next week. If a satisfactory arrangement cannot be made, then I recognise that there must be opportunity given for further discussion of this matter in which so many hon. Members take an interest. For the moment if the hon. Member will be good enough to withdraw his Motion, I will move that Clause 5 be postponed, and we will not take it to-day.

The Postmaster-General has met us very fairly. I quite realise that this Bill has not been a contentious Bill in the past. I think the suggestion which he has made to postpone the Clause, which embodies some few alterations affecting the position of the staff, is satisfactory on the condition that if no agreement is arrived at, if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to agree either with the Treasury or the staff between now and the end of this portion of the Session, that the Bill should go over until the Autumn.

There must be full opportunity for discussion. That was my offer, and it is possible that a similar opportunity to to-day may be given next week, in which case in the event of disagreement it must be decided in the House.

I quite agree if full opportunity is afforded, that is a week-day Debate such as this, and not a debate at one or two o'clock in the morning. I do not think it ought to be put down as a late order after a long day's sitting, as the points are really very important, and nearly everybody in the House to-day has been in communication with constituents on the subject. They desire to see justice done. I want to make it quite clear that if an arrangement is not arrived at between the Treasury, the Postmaster-General, and the staff, that the Bill will be put down again at a daytime sitting during next week, and, failing that, that it should go over to the autumn.

Yes, I will meet the hon. Member as to that.

I have representations from the existing Post Office staff with regard to the Seniority Clause in the Memorandum, and the Clause as to the position of Glasgow Corporation employés. I do not know whether we can bring those matters forward now.

I should like to ask the Postmaster-General in regard to the very much larger number, 5,000 of the existing staff, will it be within the province of the House to discuss their position, on Clause 5?

The position of the Glasgow employés who will be taken over from the corporation service is a question which cannot arise on this Bill.

I do not think, in view of the general statements that it is necessary to adjourn this question to the Autumn Session. We have an explicit assurance that when the Clause is reached the position will be such that the men whose case is still in question will be in no way prejudiced, and that they can be transferred on conditions which will not make any disadvantage whatever to them. That is exactly, as I understand it, what the staff want. The staff do not want postponement—they want settlement. I am quite certain that what is wanted by the staff is settlement on terms satisfactory to them, and if we can to-day, and not in the Autumn Session, get a settlement on terms satisfactory to them, our time will be better spent in dealing with the matter than in adjourning the question. I think, therefore, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, in view of what has been said, should withdraw his Motion, and let us get on with the business, deferring for the moment the consideration of Clause 5, when probably the Postmaster-General will be able to give satisfactory assurances.

I was out of the House at the moment the Postmaster-General was making an explanation. I understand his offer is this: That he will move that Clause 5 be postponed, and that he wishes to get the other Clauses of the Bill, and that Clause 5 will come up at a reasonable hour within the next week, or, assuming that no settlement has been arrived at in the meantime, that it will come up in the Autumn Session. Have I stated it correctly?

Yes.

I think, under the circumstances, it would not be desirable to press this Motion further.

It is understood we pass the other Clauses.

Yes; without prejudice to what may happen on the Report stage. I think it is only fair to ask leave to withdraw.

I beg to move, "That Clause 5 be postponed to the end of the new Clauses."

I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2).

I beg to move, after Clause 4, to insert the following

I beg to move, after Clause 5, to insert the following.