RAILWAYS (WAGE NEGOTIATIONS) (Hansard, 23 January 1962)

HC Deb 23 January 1962 vol 652 cc40-7 40

§ Mr. Strauss (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Transport what communication he has sent to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding today's wages negotiations.

§ The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)
As the text of the communication to which the right hon. Member refers is a lengthy one, and has already appeared in full in the Press, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The main purpose of this communication was to ensure that, without departing from the machinery established under the Agreement on the Machinery of Negotiation for Railway Staff, full regard should be paid to the financial and economic difficulties with which the nation, and the railways themselves, are faced at the present time.

§ Mr. Strauss
Does not this mean, as it appears to mean, that the Guillebaud Committee's principle has disappeared and that in future the railwaymen will be penalised by the fact that the railways have suffered losses for which they are not responsible?
Secondly, as the claims of the railway unions have been before the Commission for many months, why did the right hon. Gentleman intervene only 24 hours before the day arranged for the Commission and the unions to meet?
Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman's intervention at this late stage indicate, as it appears to, that he is not prepared to trust Dr. Beeching, whom he has recently appointed because of his wide knowledge of industrial matters, to negotiate prudently in this matter in the interests of the railways and the nation?
Lastly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's action in preventing the normal discussion from taking place between employer and employee on this wage claim is unprecedented, and that this disruption of long-established negotiating practice is bound to infuriate the union members and make it far more difficult to reach an acceptable settlement of this dispute?

§ Mr. Marples
The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question referred to the Guillebaud principle. The Prime Minister said in the House: The Government accept the objective underlying the Report of the Guillebaud Committee—that fair and reasonable wages should be paid to those engaged in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 643.] 42 That does not mean that after a mathematical exercise in comparability that is that. The Prime Minister never said that.
The second part of the supplementary question was whether I trusted Dr. Beeching or not. That does not really arise, because it is not a question of agreement or disagreement with Dr. Beeching. It is merely the fact that the Government felt it right and proper to make their statement frankly in the light of the economic circumstances of today, because not only have we to consider each wage claim in isolation but we have to consider what will happen to the economy as a whole if all these wage increases are granted and they are greater than the amount of productivity which we have from year to year.
Therefore, I think that the Government have been frank in setting their view before the final stage of the negotiating machinery was arrived at, which is arbitration. All we ask is that when they go to arbitration the arbitrators will take account of what is the Government's view.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Are there not two things involved in the Minister's statement? First, that he has decided to prevent the negotiating machinery from being allowed to proceed through its normal processes, and secondly, that he has laid down the conditions under which arbitration can apply, meaning that it is no longer free arbitration? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the only conclusion the workers can draw from it is that they should proceed to industrial disputes as the only way to settle their problems?

§ Mr. Marples
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on either point. First, the established machinery can go ahead. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. The Government have not laid down any terms or conditions. What they have done is to state what they think about the economy in general and what they think the arbitrators should take into account.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Is the Minister seriously asking the House to believe that? What was the point of his intervention 24 hours before the negotiators were to meet when he issued an instruction, or ukase, that the employees' side was not to make an offer? Is it not clear 43 from that that the negotiating machinery cannot proceed, since he has insisted that any reference to arbitration shall be limited in a way which he has stated in advance? How can that be regarded as free?
Will the Minister please consider the consequences of his action, because if there is no free negotiation and no free arbitration, what is there left for those who have a claim to urge beyond seeking to enforce it by power? Is that what the Government say that they want the workers to do?

§ Mr. Marples
I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has based his supplementary question on two quite false assumptions. The first is that there was an instruction of any sort to anybody and the second is that there was any mention in the statement, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read, that Dr. Beeching or anybody else is not to make an offer. All we wished to do was to say what was the Government's point of view, as freely, clearly and frankly as we possibly could, on what we think is the position.

§ Mr. Steele
Is the Minister aware that he himself is misrepresenting the situation? Is he not aware that he has instructed the Transport Commission that this matter should go to arbitration, which is the second stage, before the first stage is completed? Secondly, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, what assurance can he give to the railway workers that the Government themselves will accept what the arbitration tribunal will give them? Does he not realise that he is making it completely impossible for the trade union leaders to say to the workers "You must accept this", and that he is taking away from the trade union leaders power over the workers in so far that they will be able to take power into their own hands because of the Minister's high-handed action?

§ Mr. Marples
I am sorry, but the hon. Member is wrong. He said that the Government had instructed the Chairman of the Commission. They have done no such thing. The last sentence of the communication reads: …the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration.

Hon. Members
That is an instruction.

§ Mr. Marples
We could have put instructed" if we wished, but we did not. We "asked".
As to the second part of the supplementary question, whether the Government would accept arbitration, under the agreement which was signed by the Transport Commission and the unions neither side is formally bound to accept the results of arbitration. Just as the unions have the right to reserve their position, we as a Government have a right to reserve ours.

§ Mr. Monslow
Is the Minister not aware that responsible railway trade union leaders have taken all possible steps during these negotiations to obviate any unofficial action being taken? Is he not now aware that the decision which he has taken will be disastrous and that it is certainly no way to create what is necessary at the moment and what we regard as essential in industry—the right industrial human relations? May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that pending reversal of this decision he can expect difficulty within the industry?

§ Mr. Marples
I do not see why that should arise at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, because paragraph 17 of the agreement signed by the unions and the Transport Commission reads: In no circumstance shall there be any withdrawal of labour or any attempt on the part of the staff to hamper the proper working of the Railway until any matter in dispute has been submitted through the proper channels to the higher Management… The final stage in the negotiating machinery was this arbitration and the Government have suggested that Dr. Beeching should go there to avoid a deadlock.

§ Mr. Manuel
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has disrupted completely the agreed scheme of negotiating machinery such as has operated since 1921 and that never in the history of the railways since then has there been an action such as has been taken by the Minister in this case? Is the Minister aware that he has suggested arbitration, which need not be accepted by either side, before the negotiating machinery on wages has been exhausted and when either side can go or both can agree to go to arbitration?
45 Is the Minister further aware that he has short-circuited all that and that it is inevitable that he will now be confronted with great difficulty on the railways? Is he aware that the railway trade unions have enormous difficulty in applying restraint on their men not to take unofficial action?

§ Mr. Marples
I am sorry, but I have not altered the third stage of negotiation at all, and that is arbitration.

Mr. Gresham Cooke
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the railways and the Transport Commission as a whole are at present losing about £140 million a year? Is he further aware that those workers in other industries who have shown restraint in the last few months in holding back their claims would not want to see an immediate settlement in favour of the railway workers at present? Is he aware that a large body of opinion is behind him that independent arbitration on this question is far the best way to settle it?

§ Mr. Marples
The main thing that the Government were seeking to do was to place their point of view about the economy as a whole before the nation so that it could be taken into account in settling these wage difficulties.

§ Mr. Ross
Why not address the nation then, instead of the Transport Commission?

§ Mr. Collick
Is the Minister aware that in passing the last Transport Act the Government gave a pledge to the House to respect the existing railway negotiating machinery? Is he further aware that his action yesterday is a complete interference with that machinery? Does he not appreciate that it is nothing short of nonsense to try to pretend to the House that he has not interfered with it? The right hon. Gentleman knows very well, and Dr. Beeching will tell him if he does not know, that his action has prevented the normal functioning of the machinery. What action does he expect the railwaymen to take in the light of that?

§ Mr. Marples
I hope that both sides will go to arbitration, as the Government have suggested.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Since the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly says that he has 46 not issued instructions, may I ask two simple questions? Is the Chairman of the Transport Commission free to make an offer and, if so, if the railway unions accept the offer, is he free to enter into agreement?

§ Mr. Marples
The Chairman of the British Transport Commission has not received any instructions and, therefore, he is a free agent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The point is that if any award is made my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to raise that money by taxation. Whatever offer is made there is the question whether and how it can be implemented.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have so much to do that we cannot pursue this now.

§ Following is the communication:

§ The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission at present has under consideration.

§ In the Government's view, two considerations are paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961 has exceeded £140m. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government are bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.

§ The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor has explained in Parliament on several occasions in recent months, and in his letter of the 10th January, 1962, to the T.U.C., the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in incomes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962. when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.

§ Against this background it cannot be easy for the Government to ask Parliament to find additional funds at this time to provide any increase in railway wages. But the Government recognise that there are special factors which warrant some limited increase in the remuneration of railway workers which should in no event take effect before 1st April, 1962.

§ In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned 47 above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration.

§ The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission at present has under consideration.

§ In the Government's view, two considerations are paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961, has exceeded £140m. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government are bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.

§ The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor has explained in Parliament on several occasions in recent months, and in his letter of the 10th January, 1962, to the T.U.C., the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in incomes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962, when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.

§ In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration.