LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES (PAY) (Hansard, 8 February 1979)

§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore)
The employers made an offer of 8.8 per cent at the national joint council meeting yesterday. The offer embodied the £3.50 underpinning arrangement for the lower paid proposed by the Government, but was rejected by the union side.
I regret that a settlement was not reached yesterday. I am in close touch with both sides, and I trust that negotiations will be resumed shortly.

§ Mr. Heseltine
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is calling a meeting later today, because that recognises that what is at stake can be resolved only by a settlement between the unions, local government and national Government.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Conservative Party, in this House and in local government, will give him every support in resisting further escalation of this claim?
I remind him that six weeks ago he forecast rate increases, on average, in single figures. The latest offer of virtually 9 per cent., which has now been rejected, must mean that rate increases this year will, on the Secretary of State's calculations, average nearly 15 per cent. Does he also accept that there can be no case for encouraging the unions to seek an extra settlement which is so designed that the ratepayers, not the Government, will be expected to pay?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the negotiations that he is now conducting have an implication far outside the area of local government? Many trade unionists have already settled within the Government's targets, and the moderate and responsible leaders of those unions which have already settled will be left—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I say to hon. Members below the Gangway that a running commentary whilst a Member is speaking is offensive and ill mannered.

§ Mr. Litterick
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I should not have thought that that called for any comment. I should think that the whole House agrees that it is rude to keep interrupting from a sedentary position whilst others are speaking.

§ Mr. Litterick
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The procedures of the House are being violated before our very eyes in that an alleged question is being turned into a speech.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The day may come when the House gives its trust to the hon. Gentleman and puts him in this Chair. But, until that day comes, he must leave it to me.

§ Mr. Heseltine
May I ask the Secretary of State to recognise—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must warn the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that, if he continues to interrupt from a sedentary position, I shall ask him to withdraw from the Chamber.

§ Mr. Heseltine
May I ask the Secretary of State to recognise the implications of these negotiations outside local government? Many trade unionists have already settled within or close to the Government's guidelines. They will be left in an impossible position if the Government are now seen to abandon their targets at the first sign of any trouble.
Finally, will the Secretary of State clearly reiterate that inflationary settlements—the present offer is already inflationary—will do nothing to help the low paid? Does he agree that all that will result will be a further deterioration in our economic position from which the low paid, like everyone else, will suffer?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the public are in a mood to see this matter settled within the existing offer and that he should therefore advise local authorities to consider the use of volunteers and contractors to maintain essential services?

§ Mr. Shore
I shall not trespass on the time of the House in the way that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has done. I shall simply make three points.
563 First, I am aware, as is everyone else, that there are implications for the rates in any settlement with local government workers. Everyone is aware of that. But, at the same time, I caution the hon. Gentleman not to go in for premature assumptions about what level of rates is likely to be struck by councils during the next few weeks.
Secondly, we are aware of the importance of this settlement. As many people rightly say, the local government manual workers' settlement, coming where it does in the public sector pay round, is influential in terms of settlements which come after it. We have that very much in mind.
Thirdly, I note what the hon. Gentleman said about giving every support to the offer of 8.8 per cent. I am grateful for support these days. But the greatest support that he and his party could have given us was not to have voted in the way in which they did in December, and not to have given rise to a sense of deep-seated unfairness in the minds of those in the public sector with regard to treatment between the private and public sectors.

§ Mr. Mellish
Will my right hon. Friend go into these negotiations absolutely impartially, in the sense of considering the merits of the case? We have read that there has been a rejection of a comparability study. What are the reasons for that rejection? I thought that there was a universal desire for such a study. When is that likely to get off the ground?

§ Mr. Shore
There are, of course, a number of issues within this negotiation. One of the most important is the question of comparability and comparability studies, which, in my view, have a very important part to play for the future. As yet, there is not an identity of view on this question, but I believe that the gap on comparability which at present exists between both sides is narrow and is capable of being bridged.

§ Mr. Viggers
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen press reports of the intention of public sector workers to paralyse for several days a major centre in Hampshire by stopping the operation not only of hospitals and ambulance services but of drains and sewers? Does he agree that, regardless of the merits of the pay claim 564 involved, this action is unacceptable and disgusting to the overwhelming majority of people? What positive steps are the Government now taking to make sure that this action does not succeed in its purpose?

§ Mr. Shore
That question does not immediately arise in relation to the state of the negotiations. I have had reports that action is being planned somewhere in the county referred to. It is not a matter of anticipating events. Of course, very serious actions have been taken by public service employees in a number of major urban centres. These are very damaging to the life and welfare of the people in those areas. I strongly urge the unions concerned to de-escalate the action which they are taking and to remember the effect that it is having on those communities which they normally and very willingly serve.

§ Mr. Molloy
Will my right hon. Friend also tell the leaders of the trade unions concerned, while acknowledging that they face a difficult situation, that they should realise that inflation is the greatest menace facing the country? The bulk of the trade union movement has made a massive contribution in this respect over the last few years. But when we ask the Conservative Party and the CBI to make their contribution to holding down prices, they fight tooth and nail against it and give no evidence whatever that they have any contribution to make in fighting inflation in anyone's interest, let alone the national interest.

§ Mr. Shore
I agree with my hon. Friend. What we have at present is basically a policy which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and his colleagues approve of, which is what they call free collective bargaining in the private sector and inevitably restricted bargaining in the public sector. The consequence of that is strife from one end of the country to the other.

§ Mr. Emery
In considering the negotiations, since they have not reached a conclusion, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving guidance to the local authorities specifically with regard to garbage collection and the vast amount—nearly mountains in London and some other places—of refuse which is gathering 565 in the streets? That is entirely unacceptable to everyone, and something must be done about it very soon.

§ Mr. Shore
Through our regional offices, we are keeping in close touch with the local authorities affected. Indeed, about a quarter of local authority areas are now affected by strikes in their refuse collection services. But this is not unprecedented action in this particular area. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, there have been previous experiences and there are procedures for dealing with them which have worked successfully in the past.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
Is it true that certain local authorities are negotiating, and in some cases have reached agreement, with their work force? If so, what action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take? Has he warned them of the effect that this will have on cash limits?

§ Mr. Shore
I am not aware that any local authority has reached an agreement with its employees. I am aware that possibly four have indicated a willingness to negotiate or to reach agreement separately. Whether they will do so or whether they will wait—as I believe most will—on the national settlement, we shall have to see.

§ Mr. Newens
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Opposition have no real interest in achieving a settlement in this dispute and that their whole activity is designed to create the maximum amount of mischief and dissension for their own narrow, political advantage? Does he recognise that many of us find it quite disgusting for people on high salaries to lecture about people whose take-home pay is less than £40 a week? Will he persevere in his attempts to achieve a settlement which recognises the rights of the lower paid as well as the tremendous need to prevent further inconvenience to the public?

§ Mr. Shore
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the problem of low pay in parts of the public sector. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be very foolish if they did not recognise that there is real grievance here. I believe that the structure of the offer that has been made has been designed to give particular help to those 566 in the public service who are on the lowest pay. Furthermore, I genuinely believe that the use of comparability in the future will enable better and fairer settlements to be made—settlements that will be seen to be fairer—than it has been possible to make in the past.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is an extension of Question Time. However, I propose to call three more hon. Members from either side of the House.

§ Mr. Charles Morrison
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the position of the local authority negotiators has already been seriously undermined by the extraordinarily high offer that has been made to the water workers? Does he also agree that he is very lucky to have Conservative-controlled local authority organisations which are currently giving him full support in his endeavour to control the level of increase? Would not it be a lot better if he received the same amount of support from his hon. Friends below the Gangway?

§ Mr. Shore
I hope that I enjoy the support of the whole House in my efforts to achieve a settlement—

§ Mr. Skinner
Talk to your friends; do not talk to me.

§ Mr. Shore
—which takes account of the problem of the lower paid, and which will at the same time help us reach what I hope is a shared objective of reducing, or at least containing, inflation. If that is not an agreed objective of all of us, I do not know what is.
The hon. Gentleman asked about local authority negotiators having the feeling that they are being undermined. I do not think that is true, nor do I believe that they think it. They recognise that the water industry is a public utility and a different industry altogether. It is differently financed, and there are properly available in that industry possibilities of productivity that do not appear to be available in the same way in local government.

§ Mr. Pavitt
I accept that my right hon. Friend's immediate purpose in the present negotiations must be to deal with the urgent situation that has arisen. At the same time, will he take into account 567 that grave injustice is caused to low-paid public service workers when, in comparison with those in the private sector, they are unable to exercise their rights in precisely the same way without hitting third parties? Does he agree that there is a strong need for a long-term policy to iron out the anomaly, which does great disservice to those working in hospitals and local authorities who are not able to exercise the normal free rights of trade unionists?

§ Mr. Shore
My hon. Friend points properly to the difficulty of industrial action in the public service sector. He is right to indicate that it is inevitable that action in that sector must damage the community that public servants exist to serve. That cuts both ways. It means that there is an obligation on employers to behave fairly towards those in that position. It means that there is a special obligation on those in the public service to remember the interests of the community that they serve.

§ Mr. Michael Morris
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the position facing ratepayers is bleak, especially in the counties? Are not rates likely to increase by double the rate of inflation? Does he recognise that, if he is to be fair to both sides that are negotiating, there must be a settlement in the National Health Service? Until that settlement is reached and known, there will not be peace and calm in the local government sector.

§ Mr. Shore
It is not for me to answer questions on the Health Service. However, I am aware of the connection between manual workers in the Health Service and those in local government. The problem for ratepayers would be severe if those concerned were unable to reach a settlement—I very much hope that they will be able to—near the figures that have already been announced.

§ Mr. Norman Atkinson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that his own experience in recent weeks, together with that of his colleagues, has proved how disastrous it is to try to negotiate wages across the Floor of the House, and how disastrous it is for him to be directly involved in wage negotiations? Does he further agree that by becoming so involved public sector workers are con- 568 verted into economic regulators, which is totally unfair to them? Does he accept that the best approach is to return as soon as possible to the Labour Party's original intention of allowing joint councils freely and independently to negotiate wages and then to report to the Government?

§ Mr. Shore
I note what my hon. Friend says. We have gone beyond a period in our economic history, and in terms of our experience of inflation, when we can say that all these matters may be left to be resolved by arbitrators, which I think was the main thrust of the question—

§ Mr. Norman Atkinson
Joint councils.

§ Mr. Shore
—and that the results will add up to a total that is consistent with a tolerable level of inflation. We could find settlements through arbitration in all instances of difficulty, but unless we were clear about the parameters within which the arbitrators were to make their settlements we would have rip-roaring inflation.

§ Mr. Bowden
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the minority party in the Brighton district council is doing everything possible to try to persuade the council to settle at a level in excess of 10 per cent.? Will he openly and clearly condemn that irresponsible action?

§ Mr. Shore
It is not for me to comment on what goes on within certain councils. I am rather more interested to know the view of the majority party, which I gather is responsible for local affairs in Brighton.

§ Mr. John Ellis
After a period of restraint, when some have not had the opportunity of enjoying expense accounts and free cars, does my right hon. Friend agree that there was bound to be dispute? We are all becoming increasingly interdependent. How much, for example, is a consultant worth? How much is a lorry driver worth as against a financier or even a Member of Parliament? Are they worth 10 times or 20 times more than a lorry driver? If we all play a part in society, is someone worth 100 times more than another, or should one person be worth 10 times as much as another? Is it not time that we addressed ourselves to these fundamental issues and realised 569 that those who do the dirty and arduous jobs are no longer to be regarded as the lowest of the heap?

§ Mr. Shore
I much agree with my hon. Friend. The comparability studies that we hope will result in an agreement will make a contribution, but if we are to achieve long-term peace and order in salary and wage negotiations there must emerge a better consensus on the proper differentials that should exist between one occupation and another.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. James Lamond
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had two private notice questions this afternoon. To ensure the removal of any unjustified suspicions on the part of Back Benchers that they may be treated unfairly, will you examine, Mr. Speaker, the time that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—

§ Mr. Litterick
Six minutes.

§ Mr. Lamond
—spent in asking his supplementary question and advancing his argument and compare it with the time that had elapsed when the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) was asking his supplementary question, and you felt it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to interrupt him to tell him that he had already asked three questions?

§ Mr. Cryer
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that a few minutes ago you expressed some concern about the views being expressed by some Back Benchers during the course of the comments made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). It seemed to some of us that there was a disparity between the treatment of the hon. Member for Henley and that of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). The House must know clearly and categorically whether on private notice questions Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are to be allowed two, four or five times the time that is given to Back Benchers, and whether that is to become a rule of the House. If that proposition is put to the House, I for one shall resist it.
Surely all hon. Members should be treated with exactly the same degree of fairness. Whether a Front Bench spokes- 570 man or a Back Bencher asks a private notice question, a reasonable time, and no more than that, should be allowed for the asking of a series of supplementary questions. The hon. Member for Henley is noted for becoming excited on these occasions. It would be prudent for you, Mr. Speaker, and the House to draw attention to these circumstances and to curtail the hon. Gentleman when he is getting into that state.

§ Mr. Pardoe
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I intended to raise the matter with you after business questions but I am grateful to you for taking it now. It is not only the lion. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who gets away with it. There is no doubt at all in the minds of Back Benchers that there is a difference in the rulings that you give, Mr. Speaker, when you are dealing with those on the Front Bench compared with Back Benchers—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not prepared to listen to that unless the hon. Gentleman or anyone else wishes to place a motion on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to do that. However, he should weigh the words that he is using.

§ Mr. Pardoe
You misinterpret my words, Mr. Speaker. I was not in any way criticising you. I am not criticising you, Mr. Speaker. I am asking you whether there is a precedent, ruling or procedure of any sort that states that Front Benchers are entitled to have four, five or six bites at the cherry whereas Back Benchers are not. There is a clear difference in the procedures that are adopted. I am not saying that that is your fault, Mr. Speaker. I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, not criticising you. I am asking you to say whether there is a ruling or any procedure that allows that to happen. It happened this afternoon. You checked my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) on the forty-sixth word. I guarantee that there were substantially more than 46 words from the hon. Member from Henley. Are we equal in the House before Mr. Speaker or are we not?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House will not expect me to stay here and be subjected to points of order of the kind we 571 have been experiencing. I answer with one simple statement. I do my best by the House to be fair. It is true that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) took a long time this afternoon—and he knows it. However, there is a long custom in this House that an official spokesman is always allowed a little extra latitude in this House. That has been a custom, not only since I came to this House, but long before.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not intend to argue the question. I tell the House straight that I shall not be put in a position in which hon. Members argue with me about how I conduct the affairs of the House.

§ Mr. Pavitt
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is this a different point of order?

§ Mr. Pavitt
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on how we should try to protect the reputation of this House. I raise this point with you because of the fact that our proceedings are now broadcast, and because impressions may arise outside the House which are not necesarily shared inside the House.
You may recall that during Prime Minister's questions the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)—I may have misheard him—said that he relied on industry for his well-being and his interest. It is know to you that there are large numbers of hon. Members whose only source of income arises from membership of this House, where they spend 12, 15 or even 18 hours a day carrying out their job and who do not rely on any outside source of income. Therefore, does it not reflect on full-time Members of this House when the impression is given outside that we are amateurs and dilettantes?

§ Mr. Speaker
I would remind the hon. Member that during my time in the House, I, too, have been an amateur, but it is clear that we do not always please everybody.

§ Mr. Norman Atkinson
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Is the hon. Gentleman returning to the subject of the earlier points of order? If so, I am not taking 572 further points of order. I leave it to the House to do what it likes. That is my attitude on that.

§ Mr. Atkinson
Do you not intend to take any further points of order, Mr. Speaker?

§ Mr. Speaker
Not relating to my conduct in the Chair.

§ Mr. Atkinson
There are points of order, Mr. Speaker, which we have to raise with you from time to time because it is the only way in which Back Benchers can protest about traditional practices of whatever form.
I wish to raise with you the whole question of this place being founded on a citadel of privilege. These surely are the occasions when we seek to remind you that Privy Councillors and others have privileges compared with Back Benchers. It is surely in the best traditions of Mr. Speaker and of the House to try to eliminate some of those privileges—whether they concern replies sent to Back Benchers by Ministers, access by Privy Councillors to Departments which is not afforded to Back Benchers, car parking or even cloakrooms. A mass of privilege has been built up and accorded to Privy Councillors from which Back Benchers are excluded.
Surely if we are to examine any of these matters, the whole position should be considered. Many of us were thrilled, Mr. Speaker, when you first occupied the Chair because we looked to you, with your magnificent record in these matters, to redress the position and to try to iron out the amount of privilege which has been mounted year after year.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There are various privileges which the House, by long custom, gives to various people, and Privy Councillors come under that heading—

§ Mr. Mellish
I do not get any.

§ Mr. Speaker
—including the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
On the other matter which was raised—and of course I wish to have a right relationship in this House—sometimes difficult and nice decisions have to be taken by the Chair when an official spokesman may be said to be going on for too long. Obviously from time to time some hon. Members will disagree with my judgment.

§ Mr. Mellish
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), will you be kind enough to send me a list of all the privileges to which Privy Councillors are entitled? I am not getting any of them at all.