§ Mr. Alfred Robens(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour and National Service whether he will now make a statement on his recent action in referring back to several wages councils agreed proposals for further consideration.
§ The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton)I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I first stated my powers under the Wages Councils Act, 1945. Where wages regulation proposals are submitted to me by a wages council, I have only two alternative courses—either I can make an order giving effect to the proposals or I can refer them back to the council for their reconsideration having regard to any observations I may make. I have no power to amend the recommendations or to approve them in part.
In the case of proposals submitted by 12 wages councils, I have, under the statutory provisions which I have just mentioned, referred the proposals back for reconsideration in the light of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the National Joint Advisory Council on 15th May.
In these cases increases ranging from 6s. to 10s. a week in minimum wages have been recommended after previous increases at various dates between June and November, 1951. In a number of cases these were not agreed proposals, some of them being submitted to me as a result of majority decisions. Between the formulation of the proposals and the time when I had to decide whether to make orders came the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the National Joint Advisory Council on waves increases.
I felt that that was a statement which could not be ignored. It drew attention to the serious economic condition of the country, and the effect of wage increases thereupon. Moreover, if I disregarded it, it would appear that I was giving a lead to industry generally to do the same. I decided, therefore, that my duty was to refer these cases back to the wages councils with a request for reconsideration in the light of that statement. Such 36 a course has been followed before by the previous Administration in similar circumstances. Since, as I have explained, the Act imposes on me the obligation either to make an order or to refer back with observations, it is clearly my duty to consider all relevant matters at the date when I have to reach my decision.
I should like to make it clear to the House that my action in these cases involves no departure from the policy of non-intervention by Government in the voluntary negotiation and settlement of wages. Even in the case of the industries in question there is nothing to prevent the workers and employers coming to a voluntary agreement as to the wages which they regard as appropriate. But where I am asked to approve statutorily enforceable minimum rates of remuneration I cannot take the view that the making of an order is a formality.
§ Mr. RobensIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the statement he has now made is received with great seriousness by all those on this side of the House and by the millions of organised workers outside; that it looks to us as though this is a serious interference with the free, voluntary wage negotiation machinery, when in point of fact the Government have now taken their first step, because it has ministerial authority in this case, to freeze wages before discussions with the T.U.C. have been completed?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that this may be a turning point in the relations between the trade union movement and his Government, that in any case it is likely to bedevil relations between his Department and the trade union movement, and that, while it is true that a previous Administration on occasion referred back proposals, it was not under identical circumstances? When proposals were referred back by the previous Administration, it was at a time when the then Government were spending millions of pounds in trying to hold the cost of living with food subsidies.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am entitled to say something on this, and I am making my speech in an interrogatory manner, Mr. Speaker. If I am putting too many questions at once, I shall be quite happy to spend the next 37 hour putting the questions singly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not feel it important to deal with this urgent matter, I can assure them that there are hundreds of thousands of people outside who do.
I want to continue by asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that the circumstances were not identical, that we were holding the cost of living by food subsidies, and that this Government are responsible for an increase in the cost of living by the withdrawal of £160 million from the food subsidies. If I might have one or two answers to those questions, I will pause there, in view of the fact that the House wants a breather between the questions.
§ Sir W. MoncktonThe first thing I would say is this. I hope very much that the step which I felt it my duty to take will not have the effect of bedevilling relations.
§ Mr. Edward DaviesThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has done it.
§ Sir W. MoncktonIn principle, what I have done is precisely what was done on the previous occasion. In both cases important statements were made, one in a White Paper and the other in the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the seriousness of the economic position. In both cases, the Minister of Labour thought it proper to refer back these proposals in order that those important statements might be taken ino account. That is the principle, and I have applied it, I suggest, precisely as the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister at the time applied it before.
As to not waiting until full consultation upon the whole wages matter had been finished with the trade unions, I hope the House will allow me to say that I have been very much pressed not to delay my decision beyond the present. Indeed, I was asked to make it earlier, and I fully appreciate the reason for that. I have had, therefore, to do it before I complete the whole of the negotiations with the trade unions on wages generally.
A matter of this kind is not really one for negotiation. I have a statutory obligation to go one way or the other, and I have gone the way in which I believe my duty lies.
§ Mr. PadleyIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that these negotiations commenced in January and were completed in March, and that, therefore, for him to refer these proposals back to the wages councils in view of the statement made on 15th May, appears to many people in the trades as being a gross abuse of the Ministerial power under the Act?
Is the Minister further aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself expressed the view that workers who got no Income Tax concessions in the Budget were entitled to demand wage increases? Is he not aware that the princely sum of £5 15s. 6d., which is the rate for the large towns and which he is refusing to implement, does not, in the case of a married man, qualify for the payment of Income Tax? Since the Minister is quoting the precedent of a former Minister of Labour, will he, therefore, follow the precedent and finally ratify the proposals about which he has taken this action?
§ Sir W. MoncktonOn the question of dates, no doubt the hon. Member is right in saying when the negotiations took place, but these matters did not come forward by decisions to submit until May, in some cases, and June, in other cases. What I had to do was to see that the very important statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taken into account before these matters were dealt with. I am not in the least conscious that in any of these I have failed to give full attention to my duty, but I have done it and I cannot go back on it.
§ Mr. BevanThe right hon. and learned Gentleman is, I think, quite right in saying that these orders have to be taken seriously and that the Minister of Labour has to consider each order on its merits—other Ministers of Labour had to do the same thing—but is he aware that the Minister of Labour has other functions also, and that these functions are the very serious ones of mediation in industrial disputes and of trying to bring about a spirit of reconciliation when unofficial disputes, in particular, take place?
Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, prejudice his ability to intervene successfully in such cases when he pleads in aid a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but does not take into account other statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same 39 speech, in which he deliberately transferred to the consumer from the taxpayer very large sums of money, and at the same time, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, gave no reliefs whatsoever for lower-paid workers? Therefore, does not the Minister's action in this matter seriously conflict with his other functions? Is he aware that in so doing he may have gravely impaired his capacity for successful intervention in trade disputes?
§ Sir W. MoncktonNo, Sir. I trust that I have not, as the right hon. Gentleman fears, impaired my ability to help, such as it is, in these disputes. I have tried my best, and I shall continue to do so. All that has happened here is that I have felt it my duty to refer back to these wages councils these decisions—not to reject them, but to ask them to re-examine them in the light of that statement. I have no power to do other than refer them back, which I have done, for that reason, or to approve them out of hand. I think it right that they should have an opportunity of considering the matter in the light of that statement.
§ Mr. BevanHaving had some experience in this matter of very serious industrial disputes when I was at the Ministry of Labour, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that the efficacy of a Minister of Labour is very much influenced by the psychology of the workers whom he is trying to persuade? If he is made to appear to be an opponent of a rise in wages which is awarded by a tribunal, does that not seriously affect his influence in these matters? Would it not be very much better if the real villain of the piece—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—answered the question?
§ Sir W. MoncktonNo, Sir. Let me make no mistake about this. Mine is the responsibility, and mine was the function. About the psychology of it, of course I appreciate the importance of that, and I am as anxious as anyone not to be hampered in the course of my duties by appearing to oppose out of hand rises in wages. I merely say that I think it was my duty to have these matters referred back to be considered again. Then, when they come to me again, I will again try to do my duty. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of letting me say that I do my duty according to my 40 lights. If in doing this I have earned some more difficulties to face, I have faced them before and I shall not be deterred from doing my duty again.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Minister not aware that wages councils for the most part were set up in industries where the rates of pay were exceptionally low? Does he not regard it as very unfortunate that the Government should deliberately have intervened in this case, where wages are low, to keep wages down, while taking no steps to deal with the situation from the consumer end by restoring the level of food subsidies?
§ Sir W. MoncktonMy intervention, as it has been described, is not a thing which I can avoid. I have to make a decision one way or the other, and the decision that I had to make in this case is, as I have already pointed out, very similar to one which was made by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me for some time in earlier days.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is quite evident that we cannot debate this matter now.
§ Mr. McCorquodaleOn a point of order. We have had four or five supplementary questions from right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches. I have risen in my place every time, but no one has been called from this side of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sorry. I did not observe the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. McCorquodale.
§ Mr. H. HyndOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is only fair for me to say that I did not observe the right hon. Gentleman, who has a considerable knowledge of this matter; and I think that we ought to hear him.
§ Mr. McCorquodaleThank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is not aware that his action is exactly in accord with his duties as laid down under the Wages Councils Act, which was the product, both in principle and in detail, of the late Right Hon. Ernest Bevin?
§ Mr. RobensI ask leave to move, under Standing Order No. 9—
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is a business Question by Mr. Attlee.
§ Later—
§ Mr. RobensI beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The reference back to several wages councils of their agreed proposals.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The reference back to several wages councils of their agreed proposals.This matter arises from the operation of the statute, the Wages Councils Act, 1945, and, anticipating that it might arise, I have looked it up. The relevant Section, Section 10, in subsection (4) says:Provided that the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer the proposals back to the council and the council shall thereupon reconsider them having regard to any observations made by the Minister and may, if it thinks fit, resubmit the proposals to the Minister either without amendment or with such amendments as it thinks fit having regard to those observations; and where proposals are so re-submitted, the like proceedings shall be had thereon as in the case of original proposals.There is clear precedent for saying that where the Minister acts in pursuance of a discretion expressly conferred upon him by statute that rules out a matter of this sort from the operation of the Standing Order. The reason in this case is that this is only a part of the process laid down by this House for the purpose of settling these matters and, as the House has authorised this procedure, it is not yet urgent because all these steps laid down by this House have got to be taken. Therefore, it is clear to me that this does not fall within the Standing Order.
§ Mr. RobensMay I, Mr. Speaker, put one or two points to you? On the matter of the statute, part of which you have been good enough to read to us, it is perfectly clear that Parliament intended that as wages councils' proposals came before the Minister of Labour he would consider them and refer them back or authorise them, as the case might be. It is perfectly clear on this occasion that that has not 42 been done—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— but that, in point of fact, the Minister of Labour has saved up 12 different councils' proposals. They have come in at different times and he has put them on his desk and waited, to do what?—not that he should consider them as Minister of Labour; but that the Government should consider whether, in connection with wage freeze policy, all of them should be refused.
Therefore, I submit to you that the intention of Parliament in the statute has not been carried out, but that this is a deliberate part of Government policy in order to freeze the wages of the lowest-paid people in this country. Secondly, on the matter of public importance, everyone in this House—
§ The Prime MinisterI rise to a point of order. When you have given a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon the question of the Adjournment, is it in order that that Ruling should be challenged and argued against?
§ Mr. SpeakerOf course it is not in order to argue against a Ruling, but I am always willing, if I think it is proper, to hear what is said, because these matters are frequently put to me in the Chair and I do not pretend to me omniscient in the matters; I like to know.
I would say, first of all, to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that I have no doubt about the public importance of the matter. I am not ruling on that at all. I am ruling as I am because this is the procedure for wages negotiations laid down by this House and the whole process must be completed before we can intervene.
On the question of a debate on this, I am not saying for a moment that it is not a proper subject for debate. There are three Supply Days this week. I am not at all ruling on that ground, but I am saying that where the House has so recently laid down this procedure to be followed, it ought to be followed, and the mere fact that one step has been taken does not mean that it follows that the matter is one of definite and urgent public importance under the Standing Order.
§ Mr. RobensBefore I was interrupted by the Prime Minister—who evidently does not want to face the music on this occasion—I thought I had put to you, Sir. that this was a 43 piece of deliberate Government policy designed to get behind the statute and against the original intention of Parliament.
The second point I wish to make is that here are a million and a half people in this country responsible for distributing the food of the country to the people and they are about the lowest paid in the country. The rates, with which the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to agree, are less than £6 per week, and it may well be that, as a result of the deliberate Government action taken—
§ Mr. SpeakerWhat the right hon. Gentleman is now doing is to direct my attention to the public importance of this matter and the number of persons it affects. That I am not disputing, but I rule that because of the statute, and because the Minister has acted in accordance with the statute, the rest of the process of negotiation must be allowed to continue.
§ Mr. Robens rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerI really cannot have it argued further. I am fully seized of the matter now. The Prime Minister—
§ Mr. RobensMay I put this point to you? This is an extremely serious matter, and I would not weary this House—
§ The Prime MinisterOn a point of order. May I respectfully submit to you that you have already accepted my Motion?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not accepted any Motion; it has not been put. If the right hon. Member for Blyth wishes to raise the matter, I do not doubt its importance for a moment but, as I say, there are three Supply Days this week and it might be raised through the usual channels. But I am bound to rule it out now,
§ as it does not come within the Standing Order.
§ Mr. RobensI resumed my seat on three occasions for the Prime Minister and I feel I might be allowed to finish what I was saying. After all, I asked leave to move this Motion and I did want to warn this House of the seriousness—
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that the House will take this matter as settled. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) was good enough to say that he had resumed his seat three times for the Prime Minister. I hope he will be good enough to resume it once for me.