LONDON OMNIBUS DISPUTE

HC Deb 05 May 1958 vol 587 cc848-58

Mr. Robens

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the present position of the London bus dispute.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod)

I regret that the union did not accept the unanimous award of the Industrial Court, and, as the House knows, the strike started last night.

Mr. Robens

I think that the House will be rather surprised at the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given. In view of the fact that we now have a strike, as distinct from the position which obtained on Friday when the right hon. Gentleman last made a statement in the House, does he, in the changed circumstance, now propose to call both sides together with a view to effecting a settlement?

Mr. Macleod

I shall be delighted to give any fuller information about the strike, but the House does know the full facts from the papers; that Is why I merely outlined it to the House.

There are two new factors in the situation. The first is the strike. The second is that, following upon the rejection by the union of the award, and its decision to strike, the London Transport Executive has said that it no longer feels bound by the terms of the award.

On the question of whether I would call in the parties to see me, the position is that I will, in consultation with my advisers, decide if, and, if so, when, any intervention by myself will be useful.

Mr. Robens

Does the right hon. Gentleman not regard it as a part of his function to try to effect settlements when there are disputes of this character? Is it not clear that the time to call parties together is the earliest time, which is now, and not at some time later, when a good deal of bitterness will emerge and make a settlement much more difficult? May I ask him again: does he not feel that it would be worth while, if he really wants to help to end the strike, to call both parties together, even today, to try to affect a settlement?

Mr. Macleod

No, Sir; I intend to judge that moment myself. If I may say so, it will not be altered by either a day or an hour by the sort of party political policy that the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition introduced into their weekend speeches.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Is the Minister not aware that there is widespread feeling that the politics have been introduced by the Government? Since, as I understood from the Minister's reply to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), the London Transport Executive now regards the award as being not valid because of the strike, is the Executive, therefore, not now in a position of being free to resume negotiations with the union? Will the Minister, accordingly, take steps to use the good offices of his Ministry, in the tradition which he ought to uphold, to promote conciliation, discussion and negotiation for a settlement?

Mr. Macleod

I do not think that that is quite the position in relation to the award. The words I used, which were, of course, very carefully chosen, were that the London Transport Executive no longer felt itself bound by the terms of the award. That award stands, of course, as an expression of opinion—of unanimous opinion, may I remind the House—by the highest arbitral body in industrial affairs. Whether it will or will not play a part in the final settlement, it is too soon to say.

Mr. Griffiths

Does the Minister not regard the present position as one in which he and his Department can intervene to resume negotiations, because of the strike?

Mr. Macleod

I made it clear earlier that I feel I can intervene, but that it is for myself—and I will do it—to judge when I should.

Mr. Shinwell

Leaving aside the relative positions of both sides in this dispute, does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that he has a direct responsibility, not to the unions or to the London Transport Executive, but to vast numbers of people who are suffering inconvenience? That, surely, is his responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman cannot complain if the Opposition and members of the public, in view of the hardship and inconvenience caused to large numbers of people, do ask him to take some action in view of his responsibility in the matter.

Mr. Macleod

I do not complain at all about that. But what I have said, having now some little experience in industrial affairs, is that the moment at which one chooses to intervene—or whatever word the right hon. Gentleman likes—is one which has to be decided with the very greatest care. I have seen many situations made much worse by intervention at a date before there was a genuine change in the situation or the attitude of the parties.

Mr. Shinwell

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not stand on any point of punctilio in a matter of this sort, but will seize the first available opportunity, leaving aside all question of political partisanship and the merits of the question, to intervene in order to bring this unnecessary dispute to an end?

Mr. Macleod

Not the first available opportunity, but the first opportunity which I consider will be helpful.

Sir G. Nicholson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about some of the very far-reaching questions posed by the present unfortunate situation and strike? There is confusion in the public mind about the extent to which an arbitration award should be statutorily or morally binding, and very far-reaching questions are raised. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that he and the Government are giving them careful consideration?

Mr. Macleod

Yes, Sir. It is a very big question, which can hardly be dealt with by question and answer. The position about an Industrial Court award is that it is not, in law, legally binding, but it has been—this is most important—almost invariably accepted. It is important also that, as far as I can remember, there has been no single case of a strike against an Industrial Court award. The strike is a most deplorable happening.

Mr. G. Brown

As the Minister has said that he now regards himself as free to intervene, whereas he did not on Friday, will he explain why he regards this moment, before things are much more serious, as not the right moment?

Mr. Macleod

In all these matters it is a question of judgment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. I do not consider that anything at all would be gained by intervening at this moment, just as, when I was pressed in the House about this on Friday, I said that nothing would be gained then. When that particular question was put to Sir John Elliot, at his Press conference yesterday, he said that it would have made no difference at all if the Minister had.

Mr. Bevan

I understood the Minister to say that the London Transport Executive does not now regard itself as being bound by the arbitration award. In the absence of the arbitration award, what other proposals is it putting forward to end the strike?

Mr. Macleod

The London Transport Executive said yesterday that, in view of the attitude of the union and the strike which was, at that moment, just about to take place, it did not regard itself as bound by the terms of the award. I explained a moment or two ago how I think that the award stands. I do not think that it has disappeared, to put it in that way, from the situation. It stands as an expression of unanimous opinion by the highest body we can have in this issue. Whether that will or will not form part of the basis of any proposals or any final settlement, I do not know.

Mr. Bevan

Will the Minister be good enough to inform the House whether he does not think that to be a new situation? If the London Transport Executive now says that it does not consider itself bound by the award, there should be some concrete proposals forthcoming about which judgment can be formed. What proposals does it desire to put forward?

Mr. Macleod

Whether the London Transport Executive will put forward new proposals to the unions, I, of course, do not know. That is a matter for the Executive.

Mr. Bevan

Is this, therefore, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, not a new situation? There are two new factors: first, that the strike has occurred and is going on; secondly, that the Transport Executive does not consider itself now bound by the terms of the award. Do not those new factors constitute a reason for his own intervention to find out what the strike is about?

Mr. Macleod

If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman has repeated exactly what I said. I gave those two factors as the reason for a new situation. I said that I do feel that a new situation, to that extent, has been created.

Mr. G. Brown

Is the Minister aware that this matter went before the Industrial Court because he vetoed the agreement between the employers and the trade union about the previous form? Will he concede that that is so and that, having vetoed what had been agreed, we have now reached this situation? I therefore ask the Minister why he refuses to intervene at this stage before the matter becomes more serious. He has merely said that he chooses not to intervene. I ask him: why does he choose not to intervene?

Mr. Macleod

The right hon. Gentleman bases his whole case on a misapprehension. This matter did not go to the Industrial Court purely because of the disagreement that there was about the question of the inquiry into the London bus dispute. The suggestions that I put were either than it should be pursued through the ordinary machinery, which meant either the Industrial Court or the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, or, alternatively, that a wider inquiry into the whole situation, not confined to London alone, should be held.

Mr. Mellish

On a point order. Is it not possible, in a matter of this kind, for at least one back bencher to put a question?

Mr. Speaker

That depends upon the number of Privy Councillors who rise. I have had my eye on the hon. Gentleman and would have called him, but I cannot allow too many hon. Members to put questions.

Mr. Mellish rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no Question before the House. This is not a debate.

Mr. Mellish

Further to that point of order. There is a great crisis in a capital city of the world. Surely this House can afford two or three minutes in which to discuss the matter further. Why is it necessary to go on with the next business now?

Mr. Speaker

If the House wants a debate on this matter, it must table a Motion which can be debated and upon which the House can give an answer to a Question. This discussion is irregular.

Mr. Robens

I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Minister of Labour to perform a statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement in an industrial dispute.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Minister of Labour to perform a statutory obligation. By that, I presume the right hon. Gentleman means to call a meeting of the contending parties in the strike.

Mr. Robens

To intervene to try to effect a settlement of this industrial dispute, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that that comes within the Standing Order. The matter is not urgent to that extent. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] I hope that——

Mr. Mellish

Shocking. When is a matter urgent?

Mr. Speaker

I hope that the House will listen to me. The Minister has said that he is prepared to intervene when he see an opportune time to do so. The fact that certain hon. Members think that today is the time does not make the matter urgent.

Mr. Callaghan

Londoners think so.

Mr. Speaker

This is a large question and if hon. Members wish to debate the matter they should put a Motion on the Order Paper by arrangement.

Mr. Robens

May I put one or two points for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, before you finally decide that we may not have the Adjournment of the House? As to this matter being a matter of public importance, it can scarcely have passed your notice that millions of Londoners are grossly inconvenienced by the strike.

As to whether the matter is urgent or not, it would seem to us that it is urgent, because matters of this character, if left, turn into rather bitter antagonism. No one can say at this moment how far this strike can spread. When tempers are roused, and feelings run high, and there is a refusal by a Minister, obviously for purely party purposes—[HON.MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to have what is known as a showdown with the unions, it would seem to us——

Mr. Pickthorn

On a point of order.

Mr. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let us have one at a time. Mr. Robens.

Mr. Robens

—it would seem to us that the matter between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Labour and ourselves is as to the moment that we think he ought to intervene——

Mr. Pickthorn

That is not a point of order—nothing like it.

Mr. Robens

—and therefore, if we could have the Adjournment of the House to debate the matter we could put very clearly and fully to the House the reasons why we think the right hon. Gentleman should conduct himself as a Minister of Labour, in our view, ought to conduct himself. The views of the House would then be known and it might be that we would be able to persuade him to do his duty.

Mr. Speaker

I have never had any doubt about the public importance of this matter. That is not my point at all. What the right hon. Gentleman is really saying is that he and his hon. Friends think that the Minister should intervene today, whereas the Minister has expressed the view that it might be the wrong time. There are two views on this point. If the Minister is wrong, the House can censure him, but it should be done by a proper Motion. The matter does not fall within the Standing Order.

Mr. Gaitskell

In view of your decision, Mr. Speaker, which I regret but which we must accept, I give notice that we shall follow your advice and table a Motion which will enable the House to debate this matter.

Mr. Speaker

I am sure that the House will find that the best course.

Mr. Paget

Further to that point of order. From the point of view of the direction of hon. Members who may wish to make use of this Standing Order, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could give us some indication of circumstances that may be regarded as urgent. We have had a Ruling that the fact that the Government started a war is not urgent, and we now have a Ruling that the fact that they have started a strike is not urgent. Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, when a matter is urgent?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me to give him a lecture on the whole of this subject; he will find it all in the books. However, I will give an example of what, the other day, I did consider to be urgent. A man was threatened with deportation overnight to a foreign country, where he might have suffered loss of liberty or life. I did grant the Adjournment of the House on that occasion, because I thought that that was an urgent matter. But this matter is not in the same category, in my view.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would point out to the House that the Leader of the Opposition has given notice that he will put a Motion on the Order Paper, and I hope that we can now pass from this business.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), we recognise, of course, that for practical purposes the problem has been solved by the notice my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has just given. Nevertheless, since there may be other occasions on which similar Rulings may be asked for, I hope that it is not disrespectful to say that one part, at any rate, of your Ruling today will not be clear to a great many of us, and to ask whether you would clarify it a little.

I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that the reason that the Motion my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) wished to move was not urgent was that the question involved was whether this day or some other day was the proper day on which to call the parties together and the choice of one day or another could not be regarded as an urgent matter in itself. That is perfectly easy to follow, if I may say so, but the point I should like you to make clear is whether that does not rest upon a misconception of the proposed Motion.

It was not a question of the choice between one day and another. It was because there was an existing situation, which is admitted to be of public importance, which is admitted to be urgent itself as a situation, and the question was the refusal of the Minister to do anything about it now. Whether he ought to do anything about it now or not may very well be a matter on which opinions differ, but the question of the immediate urgency of the situation today ought to be beyond dispute.

Mr. Speaker

I do not take the same view as the hon. Member. I think that if there were a great change which was to have constitutional consequences by the refusal, or some event, as in the case of the man who was to be deported, that is one thing, but I do not think any great change or new event has taken place in these circumstances.

Mr. Bevan

Is it not strange that the interpretation of Standing Order No. 9 now appears to rest on the interpretation by the Minister of urgency?

Mr. Speaker

It does not, but it should rest on a basis of agreed fact, and that is not present here.

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order. Is it not in accordance with the traditions of the House that the operative factor here should be whether a new situation has been created or not? It would seem implicit in all you have said this afternoon, Sir, that what has been foremost in your mind is a question of urgency or not. That is a matter of opinion, but this is a question of established fact, on the submission of the Minister himself, that a completely new situation has actually arisen. By that fact it would seem that the Motion came within the scope of Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker

What the hon. Member is thinking of is the strike. That is a matter for which the Minister, strictly speaking, is not responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Order. I know that it may be argued that Government policy, and so on, has led to it, but that is not the point. The action of withholding their labour is the perfectly constitutional action of the men. The point that was really made the ground of this submission under Standing Order No. 9 was that the Minister refused to intervene today. That narrow point I do not think to be urgent.

Mr. Wigg rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I really cannot argue the matter further.

Mr. Wigg

I wish to make a further submission to you, Sir. I say this with great respect. You appear to have overlooked the fact that the Minister did not only say that a new situation had been created because of the strike, but, also, because the award of the arbitration board has now been withdrawn. Therefore, we have a completely new situation. It is the combination of those two facts that create the urgency upon which my right hon. Friend sought to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker

On the one hand, there is a strike which, as I have explained, is not the direct responsibility of the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] It is a matter of argument, but the facts on that are not agreed. There is the second point that the other party has said that it is no longer bound by the arbitration award. That is a matter for the Transport Executive and has nothing to do with the Minister. The narrow point of the urgency of this matter must still hold.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order.