§ Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement about the decision 1519 of the N.U.R. to put into force a "go-slow" campaign on the railway at midnight on Sunday next.
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)Yes, Sir. I understand that, in accordance with arrangements made between the parties last week, a meeting between the Railway Executive and the railway trade unions is taking place this afternoon. I would, therefore, ask to be excused from making any fuller statement on the immediate situation which might prejudice those discussions. In view, however, of the widespread interest in this matter, it might be helpful if I recapitulated briefly the events leading up to the present situation.
In 1947 claims were submitted by the railway trade unions to the railway companies for a £1 a week increase in wages and a reduced working week. The nationalisation of the transport industry was then imminent and, on a suggestion of the two sides of the industry, I agreed, in the special circumstances, to appoint a court of inquiry to deal with the claims. This court recommended an increase of 7s. 6d. a week for all adult workers and a reduction in the normal working week from 48 to 44 hours. The court also pointed to the need for a revision of the wages structure in the industry.
The parties accepted the recommendations of the court and the recommendations regarding wages and hours were operated as from 30th June, 1947. Negotiations were also entered into on wages structure and revised scales for the conciliation grades were agreed to in February, 1948. It was part of this agreement that the parties accepted it as in final settlement of the recommendations of the court of inquiry.
On 30th August, 1948, the National Union of Railwaymen submitted an application to the Railway Executive for a flat rate increase of 12s. 6d. per week which they stated they regarded as the balance of the previous claim for an increase of £1 a week. This claim was finally rejected by the Railway Staff National Tribunal in March, 1949.
In April, the National Union of Railwaymen submitted a new claim for a flat rate addition of 10s. a week plus time-and-a-quarter for all work from 12 noon on Saturdays. In the course of 1520 negotiations on this claim, the Railway Executive made certain offers in respect of the lower paid grades of workers. The recent special delegate meeting of the National Union of Railwaymen rejected these offers and adopted the decision referred to in the right hon. Member's Question.
I am sure the House will join with me in hoping that wiser counsels will prevail and the country will be spared the disturbance and dislocation of trade that must follow any widespread adoption of "go-slow" policy amongst members of the National Union of Railwaymen. Machinery is available for settling any outstanding questions with the Railway Executive and I am sure that it is in everybody's interest that it should be used.
§ Mr. EdenI am sure we all hope that this meeting this afternoon will have some good result. At the same time, I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that there is the question of the position of the public in relation to this matter to be borne in mind. Therefore, will the Railway Executive give some guidance to the public as to what is to be the position in respect of the services we shall enjoy, so far as we shall enjoy them, should events not work satisfactorily? I suggest that the kind of situation on which the public want information is to what extent the service will continue, to what extent it will be normal, and what plans they should make about travel and the carriage of goods?
§ Mr. IsaacsI understand that such consideration is being given, and I shall certainly draw the attention of the executive to the matter. May I add that action such as is contemplated by the men will not assist negotiations. It cannot put everyone concerned in a good humour. It will lose for them the public opinion they enjoyed as running the safest railway system in the world apart from the rules which they are now going to observe. They will not only cause inconvenience to the public, but will dislocate the essential life of the community. May I, perhaps impertinently, as an old worker myself, appeal to these workers to stick to the proper way of negotiating these things. Trust the people handling this matter and let us try to get a settlement without disturbing the life of the community.
§ Mr. ProctorIn view of the financial difficulties that confront the Railway Executive Committee at present, and in view of the feeling, very genuine and very widespread amongst the railwaymen, that they have a clear case for an advance in wages and that that advance of wages might be denied them on the grounds of the financial condition of the railway industry, which has arisen as a result of long years of past difficulties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nationalisation."]—I am not suggesting that nationalisation had anything but a beneficial effect for the whole of the railwaymen—I should like to ask in view of the parties being brought together and the feeling among them that a genuine case exists whether the Government feel that they can consider the financial implications of any arrangement which might be made?
§ Mr. IsaacsThe position of the Government and Minister of Labour at the moment is that of offering their services to help both sides. It would be rather difficult if we took up an attitude which expressed an opinion which one side might say was prejudicing the presentation of their case. All these things will be borne in mind, and we shall not delay any efforts which we can put forward to help the parties to reach a settlement.
§ Mr. ScollanIs there any chance of this negotiating body considering the withdrawal of these rules? This is the second time that the railwaymen have put working to rule into operation, and it is obvious that these rules are out of date and were not observed even under the old companies. Is there any chance of these rules being withdrawn and new rules which can be worked being issued?
§ Mr. IsaacsI am afraid that I cannot comment on that.
§ Mr. GallacherIn view of the serious situation that will arise if the negotiations do not succeed, and in view of the representative character of this House, could we not have a vote of this House for or against the increase of 10s. per week?
§ Mr. Peter ThorneycroftIn view of the great inconvenience which will be caused to everyone this coming weekend if these negotiations this afternoon do not end satisfactorily, will the right hon. 1522 Gentleman consider making a statement to the House either later this evening or tomorrow?
§ Mr. IsaacsYes, Sir. If that should be necessary and helpful, I shall not hesitate to inform the House of the situation.