§ 2.35 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have taken any, and if so what, steps to secure to those working in the London gas undertakings all the advantages which they had under profit-sharing arrangements, as, for instance, in the South Metropolitan Gas Company; and whether they are aware that for more than fifty years those arrangements have secured for those working under them and the consumers of gas in that area complete freedom from strikes and other industrial disturbances; and whether the recent strike was due in part to the anxiety of the workers lest they should lose the co-partnership privileges they have hitherto enjoyed and which they greatly value.]
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. I have been asked to reply. In answer to the first part of the Question, the noble Viscount will be aware that under Section 59 (1) of the Gas Act, 1948, the co-partnership schemes which existed when the industry was nationalised were continued for about two years until the end of March next year, to enable the future of co-partner-ship to be discussed with the appropriate 198 organisations. In answer to the second part of the Question, the Government are aware of the industry's excellent record in the sphere of labour relations during the last fifty years. But I would point out that these good relations were in no way confined to the relatively small number of gas undertakings which had co-partnership schemes. These were mainly company undertakings in the South of England; no local authority gas undertakings had co-partnership schemes. In answer to the third part, there is no evidence that the recent unofficial strike of maintenance workers at certain London gas works was due in any way to questions connected with co-partnership.
§ VISCOUNT BUCKMASTERMy Lords, in view of the popularity of these schemes with the workers and the undoubted material benefits which were conferred upon the workers, will His Majesty's Government consider extending the period given in the Act?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I am unable to reply precisely to that point, but I will see that the Minister has cognisance of the question that has been put. I would, however, remind your Lordships that negotiations are still proceeding on this matter.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODMy Lords, arising out of that answer, for which I thank my noble friend, does he not think it rather a remarkable coincidence that the adoption of the nationalisation schemes, which I think are inimical to the co-partnership schemes, has been accompanied by serious disturbances, particularly in the London area, in an industry which, as the noble Lord himself has been goad enough to say, has up to this time been exceptionally free from these difficulties? Surely, that is a matter of a most serious character and one about which I should hope (although the noble Lord has not said so) that all those who are interested in the question of co-partnership will be carefully consulted. I trust that the Minister will not regard it as sufficient that he has consulted some trade unions, but will consult the people who are actually engaged in this business.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI will, of course, see that the point raised by the noble Viscount is properly examined, but I cannot accept the view that, because there 199 have been a number of strikes recently the industry at present has had more rather than fewer strikes than obtained in years gone by. I am sure your Lordships will agree that labour relations in this country recently have been very good indeed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, may I ask a question? The noble Lord has been good enough to explain the position. As I understand it, he said that he could make no statement at present because negotiations are still proceeding. But the noble Lord did not say between whom the negotiations were proceeding. I should be glad if he could tell me that. If he cannot tell me that, are we to understand from what he has said that the Government have not finally made up their minds for or against the continuation of co-partnership in this industry?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I have been advised that discussions are ensuing between the authorities—the Gas Board and the area boards and the appropriate organisations—but I have not been given a list of those appropriate organisations. However, I can assure the noble Marquess that at this moment discussions are proceeding, but under the Act it will be not for the Government but for the Gas Board to take a decision.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, this matter is important and this may be the only chance we have to pursue it. As the noble Viscount has said, it is surely very important that the people who are consulted in the negotiations should include those who have in the past had the benefits of co-partnership. No doubt, there should be consultation with the Gas Board, the area boards and the employers on the one side, but surely on the other side—and I think this was, if not explicit, implicit, in the Act when we discussed it —there should be the fullest consultation with the people who enjoyed the benefits of co-partnership before the industry was taken over, it being the intention of the Act that something in the nature of co-partnership should continue wherever that was possible.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, all I can say is that the negotiations are taking place with the appropriate organisations. I understand that these 200 men are members of these organisations, and they therefore have rights of representation.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODI do not like these general phrases. "Appropriate organisations" may mean anything. The question is: what are the appropriate organisations? If you mean the trade unions, I regret to say that there is a certain section of trade unionists who are vehemently opposed to co-partnership in all its forms, just because it removes the danger of strikes. Therefore if you are going to consult merely persons of that kind and call them the "appropriate organisations," you are doing nothing at all.