§ Mr. Prentice(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the present position in the railway dispute.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan)Immediately after reporting to the House on 17th April, I met the General Council of the TUC and asked it whether it had any proposals which could provide a settlement of the dispute which, in view of the British Railways Board's expressed position, would not involve any further increase in the wage and salary bill of the board beyond the award made by Mr. Jarratt. I also asked the council to urge the three unions to ballot their members on the award and to suspend industrial action while a ballot took place. In reply, I was told that a meeting of the TUC's Finance and General Purposes Committee would be arranged on the following afternoon to consider my requests.
Early yesterday morning, with this meeting still in prospect, I thought it right to meet representatives of the three railway unions myself and ask them urgently to consider suspending the work-to-rule while their members were given an opportunity of expressing their views on the acceptability of the award in a ballot conducted by the unions themselves. They undertook to put my suggestion to their executives.
Last night the Chairman and the General Secretary of the TUC gave me some account of the discussions the Finance and General Purposes Committee had held with the railway unions. They told me that my request for a suspension of the work-to-rule and for a ballot were being put to the executives of the three unions. They also told me that the executives were then meeting in order to find a possible basis for further discussions with the British Railways Board on the award. In their view, the unions would not be able to make any proposal that night, despite my expressed willingness to invite representatives of the board to come to my Department immediately. Nor were they able to tell me whether the unions were prepared to suspend industrial action while any discussions took place or while they balloted their members on the award.
I told the representatives of the TUC that I still very much hoped that the unions would be able to agree a basis acceptable to the British Railways Board on which any necessary discussions on 506 Mr. Jarratt's award could take place. I also expressed the hope that the public could be assured that the unions would suspend industrial action so that passenger and freight services could run normally while these discussions took place. I had, however, to add that, if these hopes were not realised, the Government would feel bound to apply to the Industrial Court at mid-day today for an order seeking the discontinuance of industrial action.
This I have now done.
§ Mr. PrenticeThe Secretary of State has made a very grave statement to the House, and the measure which he has just announced will make it more difficult for a constructive dialogue to take place between the unions and the Government on a whole range of issues on which this dialogue is overdue. It may well lead—though I hope it will not—to a permanent worsening of industrial relations in this country.
May I put to the Minister four questions on the immediate situation? First, he has said that the TUC leaders told him last night that they were willing to make an immediate approach to the British Railways Board. Will he confirm that it was their view that they could suggest a formula for a quick settlement and that they were willing to try to achieve it? If so, does it not follow that his action may have destroyed the opportunity of that settlement being reached, because he has deliberately chosen an alternative which will sharpen the confrontation and provide less chance of a settlement?
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman denies that, will he explain to the House exactly what positive steps he proposes to take during the cooling-off period, if he gets it, to try to bring this dispute to an early settlement?
Thirdly, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the practical difficulties of definition and enforcement of a cooling-off period in a dispute where there is no strike and the men are proceeding in accordance with their normal contracts?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the House and, indeed, the Chair are in considerable difficulty because the report of the Select Committee on Procedure with regard to matters sub judice was adopted 507 by the House. We must go very carefully. [Interruption.] Order. The two questions which the right hon. Gentleman has already asked are perfectly in order, but I think that he and other hon. Members must be careful not to ask anything which might be the subject of argument before the tribunal. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members making animal noises at me. I have to try to interpret the rules of order. The House accepted the decision with regard to matters sub judice. The whole House is in a difficult position today as a result of the decision taken by the Government. This matter is technically sub judice. I want to allow the widest possible discussion. I am just issuing a preliminary warning.
§ Mr. PrenticeOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want in any way to trespass into the area which the court will be considering later today. I am attempting to get from the Secretary of State an explanation for his taking this major political step. I will proceed to ask him my third question without going into too much detail. Has he carefully considered that he was dealing not with a strike situation but with a situation in which the definition of industrial action and the enforcement of any court order would provide great complexities, particularly concerning the difference between normal and abnormal observation of the rule book and how this can be related to each railway man? Even if there were something to be said for this Act, which we do not concede, this is a particularly bad example of how to use the section.
Finally, what on earth happened to the proposals for a compulsory ballot which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be threatening yesterday? Why were they dropped? Were they dropped because he was advised by Mr. Feather and others that the likely result of such a ballot would be that the railway men would uphold their executives? If that is his assessment of the mood of the railway men, does it not make it all the more extraordinary that, instead of allowing the TUC to follow through the constructive approach that it made to him, he has adopted this heavy-handed and divisive procedure?
§ Mr. MacmillanThe right hon. Gentleman started by saying that this action made it difficult for a constructive dia- 508 logue to continue. I consider the action of the railway men in subjecting the public to the inconvenience that they have makes it difficult for the management of the British Railways Board to take a constructive view in the face of such considerable pressure.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the TUC had put forward a formula for discussion with the board. My difficulty last night was that the TUC was unable to give me any idea of the likely proposal that the union executives might put to the Railways Board. I was merely given an assurance that such proposals would be put forward. In return, I suggested that if the management and board of British Railways were to be expected to negotiate freely and not under duress and the public were to be relieved of the pressures put upon them, it would be right for the work-to-rule to be not abandoned but suspended while the talks which I understood the unions were to propose were carried out. I therefore think that in default of that assurance it is not unreasonable that the Government should discharge their responsibilities to the country and ensure as best they can the use of the court for the purpose of trying to stop negotiations under duress, which the unions appear to be seeking.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I had any positive proposals to put forward. The answer is that I have. The unions concerned should now come forward with the proposals which I have been led to understand they have and discuss them with the board. The unions have, in the course of the negotiations under the chairmanship of Mr. Jarratt, had put to them by the board an improvement, from the unions' point of view on the board's original proposals. That improvement was not only rejected out of hand by all three unions, but in the process of that rejection they made it so clear that they were not able even to consider talking at that time about the proposals that Mr. Jarratt came to the conclusion that the unions were not negotiating and he, therefore, had to make an award. That award was also rejected.
On the question of definition and enforcement, I hope that in my application to the court I have done what I can to make it plain why the Government are seeking this order. Apart from that, I think that it is for the court to decide, 509 if I may respectfully say so, on the definition and on the enforcement.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked why we had dropped our proposals for a compulsory ballot. First, neither I nor any member of the Government had put forward a suggestion for a compulsory ballot. I urged on the unions that they should ballot their own members and that while they were doing so they should of their own accord bring their industrial action to an end. I told the unions at the same time, because I thought that it was only right to warn them, that the Government could not long postpone action to deal with the emergency, and I have, therefore, made my statement today.
I should add that I hope that we have not ruled out the question of a ballot in the future. There has been a change since I first made that proposal to the unions. The TUC has talked to the three unions concerned, and I understand that as a result of those talks there is now a possibility of the unions having discussions with the board. That possibility was opened to me only yesterday afternoon by the TUC, and it is for that reason that I have now been able to say to the court that there is a possibility of this cooling-off period leading to discussions without duress on one side or the other, which might lead to a settlement.
§ Mr. RedmondDoes my right hon. Friend accept that he will have the sympathy of all the people in this country—pensioners, people on fixed incomes and everyone concerned about rising costs—for his action? Can he give any indication when the court is likely to make known its findings?
§ Mr. MacmillanI am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. When the court is liable to make its judgment known must be a matter entirely for the court.
§ Mr. Ron LewisIs the Minister aware that he himself has not helped matters during the last three days by his arrogant, Hitler-like attitude towards the three unions? It is all very well for the Prime Minister to sit there shrugging his shoulders, with that arrogant grin of his. I know what has happened. Is the Minister also aware that what the unions are doing is working to rule? Furthermore, 510 does he appreciate that there are a number of widows and orphans whose husbands and fathers would probably have been alive today if they had all worked to rule? Is the right hon. Gentle man going to push this ahead a little so that there are more widows and orphans?
§ Mr. MacmillanI am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have taken an aggressive attitude. I have tried to be patient and give the unions as much time to consider the matter as was consistent with my duty to protect the public.
The board's first offer was rejected on Wednesday night. I saw the unions and asked them whether they would reconsider the matter. I asked them whether they would use the proper processes which are the subject of an agreement between the board and the unions, and go to arbitration. When, for one reason or another, arbitration was considered by the unions to be unsatisfactory, I asked them whether they would consider a variant of arbitration which the board had devised to meet the unions' objections to the agreed process. Both they and the board agreed to do this. They discussed the matter fully all through Sunday under the chairmanship of Mr. Jarratt. In the end, Mr. Jarratt came to the conclusion that, although the board had made a movement, the unions had made no movement at all and there was no real negotiation, and the only thing left to do was to make an award, which he did. The unions rejected the board's proposal. They refused to discuss it further, and they rejected the award.
I then asked the unions whether they would consider balloting their members, and they rejected that, too. There was then, fortunately, owing to the good offices of the TUC, a possibility of a new approach which would not simply be a repeat of the demand for the original claim. That approach has not been forthcoming, and there has not been any sign of a willingness to suspend the work-to-rule and ban on overtime.
The Government thought it intolerable that the negotiations or any further talks which could have taken place earlier could now take place only against a background of pressure against the board and management of British Railways and 511 the public. Because of the work-to-rule, the Government thought it only right to ask the court whether, in those circumstances, it would be willing to issue an order under the Act.
§ Mr. CormackDoes my right hon. Friend think that the most helpful, sympathetic and conciliatory attitude that could be adopted by all those who want this dispute to be solved would be to show a true and proper respect for the law and the courts of the land, and that the example should be set in this House?
§ Mr. MacmillanIt is fair of my hon. Friend to remind the House that, whether one approves or disapproves of laws, they are the laws of the land.
§ Mr. AtkinsonDoes the right hon. Gentleman recall the discussions which his predecessor had on this very issue? Does he recall that during those discussions the point was made that if the conditions of employment or the contract of employment under which men were employed on railways included insistence on those men working to the rule book, and if the court could make an order only for the men to return to work within the terms of their conditions of employment or contract of labour, the court would have to order them back to work in accordance with the rule book? That would apply to all the railway workshops.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is asking the court to do the impossible by asking it to order railway men back to work within the terms of the rule book which is now in dispute? Is that not the situation, and does it not prove correct the predictions made by the TUC that the Industrial Court could not solve disputes in this situation?
§ Mr. MacmillanI think it right to remind the hon. Gentleman that I am putting an application to the court not to solve the dispute but merely to deal with the industrial action. Whether the court judges that that falls within its capability is a matter for the court, not for me.
§ Mr. Adam ButlerWill my right hon. Friend make it clear on every possible occasion that a cooling-off period is not being imposed by a diktat of Government, but is subject to the decision of a court of law set up by the democratic votes of the Houses of Parliament? 512 [Interruption.] Is he aware that all fair-minded people will see a cooling-off period, if it is granted, as being fair and reasonable in all the circumstances?
§ Mr. MacmillanMy hon. Friend is right. This is a point of difference between this Government's legislation and that proposed by the previous Administration; but the decision whether or not to impose a cooling-off period under our system rests with the court and not with the Government.
§ Mr. BradleyWhen does the Minister intend to act as a genuine conciliator instead of allowing himself to be used by the Conservative Party as a mouthpiece—[Interruption.]—to challenge the trade union movement? Does he agree that the difference between both sides in this dispute is very narrow indeed? Why did he distrust the assurances given by Mr. Victor Feather yesterday about the talks with the TUC, which I attended, when there was a perceptible movement on the part of the railway unions towards a position where talks could have been resumed today with the British Railways Board, with possible fruitful consequences? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the ultimatum—I forbear to use the word "blackmail"—which he issued last night completely prejudiced that prospect?
§ Mr. MacmillanI assure the House that there was no question of my not trusting Mr. Feather. Unfortunately, however, he was unable to give me the slightest idea of the proposals which he had discussed with the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the TUC; the slightest idea whether or not those proposals involved extra spending by the board, over and above the wage deal of the Jarratt award; and any idea whether the unions would find the proposals which had been discussed acceptable to them.
He was, therefore, asking us for more time for further pressure to be put on the country by the industrial action which is being taken—[Interruption.]—while the unions were making up their mind. Since this had been the history of these negotiations and since the best proposals, those most likely to be fruitful, had already been rejected by the unions—they had arisen during the Jarratt negotiations—it was difficult to see any reason 513 why they had been rejected then but had again been suggested later on if it was not for the fact that the unions wished to delay further while the effects of their industrial action accumulated.
§ Mr. David SteelWill the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what it is he is asking the court to order?
§ Mr. MacmillanI am advised that I should not, while the court is sitting, go into any details. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. ThorpeOn a point of order. Bearing in mind the ruling you gave earlier, Mr. Speaker, and bearing also in mind the sub judicerule generally, may I seek your guidance in this matter? If we are told by the Minister that an application has been made to the court, are we not entitled to know what that application is for? It is understood that any Minister is unable to go into the merits behind a particular remedy which he is seeking, or to express his opinion whether or not the court will grant it, but it is surely not only in order but to be expected that a Minister should, having applied to the court, tell us for what he has applied.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it is a better rule to allow the Minister to complete his answer.
§ Mr. MacmillanAs I said, I am not able to go into the details of the application as these contain the reasons and arguments for going to the court. The application has been made under Section 138 of the Industrial Relations Act. It is for a cooling-off period of 21 days.
§ Mr. PrenticeOn a point of order. Would you at least confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be out of order if the Minister had chosen to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel)?
§ Mr. SpeakerI can only rule on matters of order. If I hear anything that is out of order I shall rule accordingly. Mr. Rost.
§ Mr. CohenOn a point of order. Would you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the application to which the Minister 514 referred has been made to the court not on his behalf but on behalf of this Chamber, so that Parliament, on whose behalf it has been made, is entitled to know its contents?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter of order for the Chair. Mr. Rost.
§ Mr. HefferOn a point of order, Mr, Speaker. The Secretary of State rightly says that the application has been made under Section 138 of the Act. May I remind your, Mr. Speaker, that that provision starts:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State…that, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, industrial action, consisting of a strike, any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or a lock-out, has begun or is likely to begin.In those circumstances, is not the House entitled to know precisely what the application is about? Is it, in fact, about irregular industrial action? If so, may we be told exactly what type of irregular industrial action it is? Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State must explain to the House whether a work-to-rule—working to the rules of the railway company—or a ban on overtime is an irregular industrial action? Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to make an application under that Section of the Act?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is very far wide of a point of order. Indeed, it goes into the whole of the merits of the matter which is essentially one for the court to decide. That is exactly what is sub judice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anticipatory points of order of this sort do not help. I have not yet ruled any hon. Member or any question out of order. Mr. Rost.
§ Mr. AtkinsonOn a point of order. Further to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your advice as to the position that would arise if we, as a House, wished to disapprove of the Minister's action? How could we do that in view of what you have said?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere are various ways whereby the House can challenge the acts of the Executive. However, what hon. Members cannot do when a matter is before a court of law is to discuss it 515 here until the court has come to a decision.
I am endeavouring to carry out the Resolution which the House passed on 23rd July, 1963. I am bound by it. I have to administer the rules of the House as best I can, and I repeat that I have not yet ruled any question out of order.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerFurther to the points of order that have been raised with you, Mr. Speaker. May I urge you to accept that the House is entitled to hear from the Minister precisely about what he is asking the court to make a decision? Is the Minister asking the court to decide that the railway men must work in breach of rules——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I repeat that I have not yet disallowed any question to the Minister.
§ Mr. BuchanOn a point of order——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am not prepared to hear any more points of order on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I ask the House to bear with me. I have not yet ruled any question out of order. The Chair has no power to make a Minister answer. That is not a matter for the Chair. If the House will kindly get on with the questioning and not put so many of these anticipatory points of order, we shall do better. Mr. Rost.
§ Mr. BuchanOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the point of order deals with the same matter, I will not take it. I have ruled on the matter. Mr. Rost.
§ Mr. RostIs it not intolerable that those who are causing the inconvenience to the public and holding the nation to ransom are actually being paid for it by the taxpayer?
§ Mr. MacmillanI was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that at present the taxpayer is paying anyone, except through social security Acts and in other ways.
§ Mr. CallaghanMay I, Mr. Speaker, repeat a question from the Liberal Benches, because if it is not out of order we would feel that it would be rather an insult to the House if the Minister 516 does not give us an answer? I understand from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that the question was not out of order. May I, therefore, put it again with your permission? What is it that the Minister has made application to the court to do, and would he please publish his application in HANSARD so that we may all read it? That is a perfectly simple question. As a House, we should like to have an answer. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. To stop any more preliminary points of order, that question, in my view, is in order.
§ Mr. MacmillanIf I may come to a point of fact which was raised by an hon. Member opposite, this application—[Interruption.] it was a question that I was asked—was made by the Secretary of State for Employment and not on behalf of the House. It is not made by the Government.
On the question asked by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I made this application under Section 138 of the Industrial Relations Act. It was for a cooling-off period of 21 days. The reasons were set out in a document which I have set before the court. That document is, I understand, now the property of the court, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me without the court's permission, to publish it in HANSARD.
§ Mr. CallaghanMay I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The Minister has given an opinion that, in his view, it would not be appropriate for him to publish the document as it is the property of the court. We are treading very new ground in this matter, and one of the reasons for the disquiet today, certainly on this side of the House, is the feeling that very important semi-political issues may be removed from the control of the House.
I ask for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider, as this matter is new to you as well as to us, whether it would be improper for the Minister to refrain from setting out in detail in HANSARD what is his application? Clearly, you would not be able to give such a ruling today, Mr. Speaker, but it would be very helpful if tomorrow we could have your considered view on 517 this matter. Allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, with no disrespect, that if it really became the case that the Government could make secret applications to the court that can be published only in due course when the court decides, I believe that the Industrial Relations Act would be brought into even greater disrepute than it is today.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. In my view, the Minister is in order in stating the nature of the application. When it comes to the arguments to be put forward in support of it, that seems to me to be part of the judicial proceeding, and I would not think that the House would be in order in inquiring into them until we have heard the finding of the court. The nature of the application is in order, but not the arguments put forward on the merits in support of it; those are matters for debate at the appropriate time.
The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I might consider the matter and, perhaps, rule tomorrow. I think certainly that that is a helpful suggestion. But I must not leave the House in any false hopes of one sort or another. My present feeling is that it is absolutely in order for the nature of the application to be stated to the House, but the arguments about its merits are sub judice.
§ Mr. CallaghanI would hope that perhaps we could leave this particular point where it is for today, perhaps, in order to give you, Mr. Speaker, a chance not to commit yourself further, because you have expressed a preliminary view. Speaking as a non-lawyer—and most of us in the House are non-lawyers; some would say "Thank goodness"—we shall find it extremely difficult to understand why it is not possible to publish the details of an application which the Government have made to the court. I beg the court and you, Mr. Speaker, and the Government, if they really want this thing to proceed and to get a settlement, to take us into their confidence and tell us as much as they can about it. If indeed they cannot, because they have now put themselves in baulk so that they cannot tell us the reason, they are making the situation a darned sight more difficult than it need have been.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
§ Mr. C. PannellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are considering the reference made to you by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), on which you agreed to act, will you consider the chronology of what has taken place today? You admitted a Private Notice Question, Mr. Speaker, which could have been answered at 3.30 p.m.; but I understand that the court will not convene until 4 p.m., so the matter can hardly be sub judice before the court has started its process.
Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this may not be the last occasion on which we shall run into difficulty, would it not be better for the Government's timing in future that they do not appear to shut out the House of Commons from this consideration? The Secretary of State has said that his Department made this application, and then used words to say that it was no business of the House of Commons. We do not accept that dictum at all. This matter concerns disorder up and down the country. It needs a long cool look and should not be left in the inept hands of the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am all for a long cool look. I think that the Select Committee on Procedure did take a long cool look and dealt with the right hon. Member's point by saying,
As, for example, by notice of Motion for an injunction.
§ Mr. MacmillanFurther to that point of order. Perhaps I can help, Mr. Speaker. I should point out to the House that I did not in any way suggest that it was not a matter for the House of Commons. I merely said that I was not making an application to the court on behalf of the House of Commons. I should point out that this is a public court and that the proceedings are publicly held as part of the High Court. This application will, therefore, be available. We have certainly no wish to keep it secret in any way. It is just that I understood that it would not be proper, as this is an application which is now before the court, for me to go into any further detail than I have already done.
§ Mr. PagetOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerNot at this stage.