Lords Sitting of 14 November 1957

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  WESTERN AVENUE WIDENING
  3.5 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is intended to widen the Denham end of the Western Avenue, observing that the present relative bottleneck is most dangerous.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, my right honourable friend hopes to fit into his programme a scheme to provide dual carriageways on the Denham end of the Western Avenue, but this is not likely to be possible for some time.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he is aware that dual carriageways at the end of Western Avenue were partly completed before the war? There is a bridge about half built—the piers of the bridge are there but not the decking. And may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the present state of affairs is extremely dangerous, the road being not wide enough for three lines of traffic but, on the other hand, not narrow enough to prevent them from trying?
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, what is a "relative bottleneck"?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, I can only assume, having listened to the supplementary question the noble Earl has put to me, that he regards a "relative bottleneck" as the "father and mother" of all bottlenecks. In answer to the noble Earl's supplementary question, I am aware of the facts which he has given the House. We hope to complete this portion of the Western Avenue when we can. The noble Earl, I think, is not strictly accurate when he says that this area is very dangerous.
  348
  The casualty figures relating to this particular stretch are not so serious as for some other places which—rightly, I think—have been given higher priority.
  EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he will be so good, when he can find the time, as to drive down this road himself. He will then be able to judge whether it is dangerous or not. I suggest that Lord Conesford should do the same.

  USE OF FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE
  3.7 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any action is contemplated to deal with the question of shipping registered in certain countries to avoid taxation regardless of the country of origin of the owners.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the problem of meeting the threat which the rapid growth of the "flags of convenience" offers to the merchant fleets of the United Kingdom and other established maritime countries is one which has occupied Her Majesty's Government for some time. The action taken by the Government in this year's Budget to increase the investment allowance for shipping has already reduced the advantages which the "flags of convenience" have over United Kingdom shipping. The international aspects of the problem are now being studied by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, and the Government will consider the matter further when the report of the Organisation is received.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords. may I thank the noble Lord very much for that Answer? No doubt he is aware—or perhaps I should ask him whether he is—that from 1939, when there were some 3,000 tons of this shipping, the tonnage has grown until the total involved, so far as four countries are concerned, is now 11 million tons. And, further, is the noble Lord aware that these ships are working without any regard to agreements relating to wages and working conditions for crews? It really is a serious matter.
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lord, I am aware of the facts; and the Government are aware of them also. We agree with the noble Earl that it is a serious matter.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he is aware (I am sure he is, but I have to put it in this way) that the International Law Commission of the United Nations have considered this matter and have recommended that it should be met by insisting upon a genuine link—"genuine link" are the words actually used—between the shipping and the country of registration? May I further ask the noble Lord whether he will impress that point upon his right honourable friend with a view to the Government's giving it their fullest support when the matter is considered again in March next year? It seems to me to be a very sensible way of dealing will a scandal—and a growing scandal.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right honourable friend. I should like to thank the noble Lord for asking the question, and also to express our pleasure at the fact that he is here to put it.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, arising out of what has just been said, about the conditions of service being operated in these ships, could the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, tell me whether the Ministry of Transport have received any direct representations from delegations from seamen's trade unions in this country?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I could not, without notice, tell the noble Viscount whether the Ministry have received any direct representations. But I have received from certain unions—as I am sure the noble Viscount and others have also—a pamphlet with the unpronounceable title of Panlibhonco, which sets out the case fully and to which I know my right honourable friend is giving full and careful attention.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  3.12 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. It is in these terms:
  "I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

  THE BANK RATE INCREASE: TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, in order that the Motion standing in my name may be moved at roughly the same time in both Houses of Parliament, I wonder whether I may suggest to the House that we should go on now with the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and that I should move at a slightly later hour the Motion to set up a Tribunal of Inquiry. I have consulted my noble friends opposite, and I think that that would be convenient.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we should be willing to fall in with that arrangement if it meets the wishes of the rest of the Members of the House.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper on this subject.
  Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session:
  That the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the said Act be referred to the Joint Committee:
  That the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

  L. Derwent,

  L. Rathcreedan,

  L. Terrington.

  L. Cawley,

  L. Jessel,

  L. Broughshane:

  That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to request that they appoint six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

  WHITLEY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
  3.13 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN rose to call attention to the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations of the National Whitley (Administrative and Clerical Officers) Council; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I see that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is not in his place. I make no complaint of that, because it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that the noble and learned Viscount has done his share of work during the last fortnight, but it is inevitable in the nature of the case that in the course of my remarks I should make some reference to him.
  May I say at the outset that I do not believe that the Minister of Health is personally responsible for this refusal: I believe it to be a considered action of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It will be remembered that in the debate on the Address in reply to the gracious Speech the noble and learned Viscount cooed as lovingly and soothingly to the trade unions as any turtle dove. Of course, we cannot expect the noble and learned Viscount to use in your Lordships' House that "rumbustious" language (the word has been used several times before) which, if reports are correct, roused the Conservative Party Conference to frenzied enthusiasm. Nor can we expect him to display his prowess as a campanologist; and, above all, we cannot expect him to entertain your Lord-
  352
  ships with a repeat performance of his strip-tease act. But I think that we are entitled to expect from the noble and learned Viscount some measure of consistency. What was the message to trade unionists that went out from the Brighton Conference? I quote from Francis Williams in the New Statesman:
  "'Hailsham Warns Unions,' shouts the Daily Mail across eight columns, 'Hailsham Slams Out' echoed the Express across seven columns. 'Hailsham Comes Out Fighting: Reveals the Big Plot.' screeched the Sketch."
  I understand that these newspapers go into some 10 million homes and I believe that I am correct in saying that they support the policy of the Conservative Party. But actions speak louder than words.
  Following the Brighton Conference, the Government soon went into action, into the attack. May I ask your Lordships to note how carefully the Government chose the first union to attack? Forgive my being a little technical, but it is necessary at this moment. On October 11, at a special meeting of the Whitley Council, which your Lordships might kindly note includes four representatives of the Ministry of Health and one from the Scottish Health Department. together with thirteen representatives of boards of governors (that is of teaching hospitals), executive councils, hospital management committees and regional boards, the management side offered—may I repeat; the management side offered—increases of 3 per cent. for those earning under £1.200 per annum and 5 per cent. for those earning over £1,200 per annum. Although the staff side considered the offers inadequate, they accepted them.
  I ask your Lordships to note that it was unanimously decided that the recommendations should take effect from October 1. I agree that under the regulations issued in 1951 the Minister's approval of the recommendations is necessary but right up to the present this has always been regarded as a formality in fact it has always been understood that a Minister would not override recommendations arrived at by the collective bargaining machinery. The Minister may have the legal power. but I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—he will probably know it better than I—of a line which has conic down to us through the ages:
  "Virtue it is to abstain even from that which is lawful."

  353
  On October 30 the Minister of Health refused to approve the recommendation for a 3 per cent. increase for those receiving less than £1,200 a year, the Government thus breaking a long-standing tradition by intervening between employers and employed, and particularly when there was a clear understanding that, notwithstanding any legal right, the Government, in practice, would not do so.
  I ask myself the reason why the National and Local Government Officers' Association, with its 40,000 members, was chosen as the first union to be attacked. The reason is simply this: that this particular union has not a strike policy. It has always trusted to the reasonable character of the demands submitted and in the power of persuasion; and it is unthinkable that N.A.L.G.O., whatever the provocation, would do anything to disrupt the service in our hospitals. Above all, N.A.L.G.O., has always set before its members the ideals of service, of loyalty and devotion to their profession. The Minister approved the recommendations for a 5 per cent. increase to those receiving over £1,200 a year. But—and I say this in no provocative sense—this attempt to cause division and disunity in the ranks (forgive me for saying it), which I regard as despicable, will fail. The service is united, scornful and resentful of the Minister's unprecedented breach of faith.
  The Government expected an easy victory that N.A.L.G.O., with some 250.000 members—the largest black-coated workers' trade union in the country—as well as the other unions associated in the Whitley Council, would meekly come to heel. The Government hoped in this way to give a signal and pointer to all employers, whether in nationalised industries or otherwise, as to how applications from trade unions should be dealt with. The Government's refusal in this instance indicated, as plainly as if it had been put into actual words: "We will support the employers. We will not intervene to secure a compromise. We consider that no offer of any kind should be made." If this is not a declaration of war on the trade unions, I do not know what else it can be. The trade unions in the Health Services, however, are fighting back. It is not a fight of their making; it is one deliberately provoked and forced on them by the Government. Her Majesty's Government no doubt feel that they can easily crush any resistance. Well, we shall see.
  354
  This I can say, from my own knowledge: I the staff are angry and deeply conscious of the injustice meted out to them by Her Majesty's Government.
  The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailshant, brushed aside contemptuously the negotiating machinery associated with the honoured name of a former Speaker of the House of Commons; and I will quote his words. He said [OFFICIAL. REPORT. Vol. 206 (No. 2). col. 71] that:
  "… a body which was purporting"—
  your Lordships will note the word "purporting"—
  "to negotiate on behalf of the employers—namely, the management committees of hospitals—was not negotiating on behalf of those who had to pay all the money—namely, the Government."
  What utter nonsense, my Lords! This is a National Health Service. The people employed in it are servants of the nation; and it is the nation which. by taxation. direct or indirect, pays all the money. Even the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would not have the hardihood to equate this Government with the nation. What Her Majesty's Government, in effect, are saying to the nation is: "We will prevent you from paying to your servants salaries which, after full consideration by an impartial committee. are recommended as fair and reasonable." Is it to be wondered that the trade unions in the Civil Service, the teachers, whose conditions are governed by the Burnham Committee, and all such unions feel alarmed that this action of the Government is but the first step, and that it is a direct challenge to the long-established method of collective bargaining through Whitley Committees? In addition, the impact of the decision of the Minister in this instance on other trades unions not hound by Whitley machinery will inevitably be far-reaching and serious.
  It is fifty years ago since I first joined my trade union. During all those years as a rank and file member, never as a paid officer, I have done what one member could to forward its ideals. Looking back—and I am repeating what I have previously ventured to say in your Lordships' House—I am convinced that trade unionism to-day has far greater responsibilities than ever before. If this country, impoverished by two world wars, is to survive—I put it as high as that—there must be a new spirit in industry. There

  355
  must be co-operation, mutual confidence and mutual trust. These can help the nation towards that new spirit which is so urgently required, and is the price, in my judgment, we have to pay for survival. For that reason I profoundly regret and deplore the deadly blow which the Minister has struck at sane trade unionism in the Health Service, and a blow which has destroyed mutual confidence in the Health Services. That is why, even at this late hour, I would beg the Minister to retrace his steps, and not to create, by his breach of faith, circumstances which will inevitably bring in their trend disastrous consequences, not only in the Health Services but in the far wider field of trade negotiations. I beg to move for Papers.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations of the National Whitley (Administrative and Clerical Officers) Council; and to move for Papers.—(Lord Burden.)
  3.33 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, would excuse me. I should like to say a few words on this Motion before he replies. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Burden for the time he has given in preparing his case on the subject, and I should like the Government Bench to understand that we are fully behind the Motion which has been moved to-day. I can be quite brief, but there are one or two things I wish to put to the noble Lord who is to reply.
  The first is this. What is the exact position now as between the one part of the decisions of the Whitley Council which has been accepted and the part which has not been accepted? As I understand it, Her Majesty's Government are approving the increase of 5 per cent. on all emoluments over £1,200 a year, but are not approving the 3 per cent. increase on emoluments below £1,200 a year. Noble Lords in all parts of the House have probably received individual representations from different parts of the country as to the effect of this award in detailed cases. I should have thought that, if there was a certain sum of money the expenditure of which the Minister of Health was prepared to
  356
  approve at such a time as this, whatever the sum, it should have been at least spread among those who were in the greatest need in the Services concerned.
  I do not think many people in the country are aware of the kind of emoluments involved in this matter, in which an increase has been banned by the Minister of Health. I have here a communication (obviously I cannot give the name of the writer) which says:
  "Allow me to illustrate the wages position as it affects some of us"—
  That is, in the Service—
  "I work along with seven others in a medical records office of a busy casualty and out-patient dispensary; four of us (males) commenced employment as clerks from July to October, 1956. Our wages are as follows: the writer, who is a married man with no children, has a weekly wage of £7 18s. 1d.—after deductions, £6 19s. 4d."
  That is the total income coming to that man for his week's operations in general. What can be saved out of it for other contingencies arising during the year for which he has to pay? How many of us, as married men, would like to be left at the present time, with the present level of the cost of living, to provide housing. sustenance, clothing. insurance, travelling to work and everything else, on a net income of £6 19s. 0d. a week, and still keep up the respectable appearance of black-coated workers on a Government Service clerical staff? Yet that is the effect of the Minister's decision to override what I understand from my noble friend Lord Burden was the unanimous recommendation. I believe that it was unanimous, although the other day I heard a suggestion that the Government representatives on the Council were not in favour of the recommendations. I should like to have that point cleared up to-day.
  I take another case. This man says:
  "A colleague who commenced at the same time, but has one child, takes home the princely sum of £7 2s. ld."
  He receives that amount because he gets some income tax allowance in respect of the child.
  "Another one who commenced in October, 1956, and thus did not qualify for the yearly increment … received a net payment of £6 11s. 8d."
  Of course, it is true that in these particular cases they will later have the opportunity of rising to a better annual salary;

  357
  but surely, in considering applications of this kind to a Whitley Council, you have to deal with the existing facts of the situation and what these men and women have to put up with because of the present rate of the cost of living.
  I beg the noble Lord to convey to his ministerial. colleague the feeling that am sure roust be general throughout the country: that when it comes to a ministerial decision to impose a ban upon the decision of a Whitley Council he should bear in mind the fact that the differentiation in the award—if it is a differentiation—of giving 5 per cent. to those earning over £1,200 a year and denying any increase to people in the category I have mentioned, is a great social injustice. It is a pity that this should be the first action of the kind in this crisis taken by a Government Minister.
  I do not need to repeat to the noble Lord what. I said in the course of the debate on the loyal Address about my own personal association with the National and Local Government Officers' Association. With their standard of loyalty and integrity, which extends even to organising special instructional and educational courses for the improvement of the qualifications and efficiency of their members, they have obtained an outstanding reputation in the field of trade unionism. They are very concerned about what their actions should be at the present time. There are other unions also involved in the settlement, and apparently already there has been a decision by some of them to exercise a ban upon overtime in the non-medical classes of employment in this service. I must say that if, in the case of an organisation like this, a Government ban can be so exercised, I am all the more against the kind of suggestion made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his speech on the loyal Address. I should be as anxious for any ministerial colleagues of mine, as I am sure Ministers opposite must be anxious for their ministerial colleagues, not to have, as a general rule at any rate, the awful task of ministerial responsibility for such decisions as the one which has been taken by the present Minister.
  I do not know whether that has been forced upon him by a Treasury edict or whether it has been done entirely upon his own respon-
  358
  sibility. One must raise a doubt whether this could have been done unless the Minister had had the general support of members of the Cabinet itself. In the whole of the circumstances, therefore, I am bound to say that unless some improvement can be made in the situation, by doing what my noble friend has suggested, giving further consideration to this decision, it will remove all confidence in the general trade union movement in the country as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the other collective bargaining, arbitration and other awards likely to be made in the future. I know it is true that we have received from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and from others, assurances that this, that and the other is certainly not intended; but I think the task of the Government at the moment is to remove this ban in such a way as will convey evidence to the whole organised trade union movement that the Government will be true to their word when they come to deal with all the other kinds of collective bargainings which must take place during the crisis and post-crisis in this fight against inflation. Therefore, now that he has heard the case that my noble friend has put this afternoon and these smaller points that I am now putting, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to persuade his ministerial colleague responsible for the ban to take it hack and give it further consideration.
  3.45 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene? I did not put my name down on the paper because it did not occur to me that this matter would come to a decision. I read the decision originally in the Lancet, which does not usually publish information about trade union matters—it has not been necessary up to the present time. I regret very much indeed that this decision has been taken without a preliminary explanation at least, if nothing more, to this House. because it is. so far as I know (the noble Lord will no doubt correct me if I am wrong), the only case in which a decision of this kind has been taken this year. Is that the case or not? It is, at any rate, the only case that has come to my knowledge.
  As one who has had charge and command of a large number of medical institutions all over the country, as well as outside this country, during the war

  359
  period and afterwards, I am simply astounded that a decision of this kind has been made. It seems to me to be almost inexplicable. I cannot see the reason for it. Here is an institution consisting to a large extent of high-grade people of great integrity with high qualifications, who are suddenly chosen from all the other unions in the country and subjected to this form of treatment. Can it be because it is regarded as a weak union? I hope it is not that. Certainly it will not be a weak union in effect, because it will certainly be backed by the trade union movement of the country as a whole; there is no doubt about that at all.
  I feel very strongly that the Government have made a serious mistake. It may be regarded as a necessary discipline, but if that kind of discipline is to be applied to the whole of the trade union movement then God help this country, because you will have a terrific mess! I feel very strongly on the matter because it is one that touches my own profession—that of a doctor—very nearly indeed. I have myself had command of a large number of hospitals at different times, beginning from the First World War until the last World War, and I know a great deal about the organisation. I confess I am frankly staggered by this decision, which has been made without, so far as I know, any preliminary discussion or consideration with other parties and with those who, like myself and other representatives of the medical profession, know something about the practical carrying out of medical work. the effectiveness of which this decision will vitiate very badly indeed.
  3.48 p.m.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the question which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised this afternoon was discussed in your Lordships' House last week. I am glad he has raised it again, as it will give me the opportunity to explain to your Lordships in some detail precisely what has happened and the reasons for the decision of my right honourable friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that noble Lords opposite who have just spoken will not be hurt or disappointed if I tell them that I disagree
  360
  profoundly with most of the opinions which they have expressed upon that decision.
  First, my Lords, let us come to the facts. On September 17 last the staff side of the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council in the National Health Service submitted a claim for an increase of 5 per cent. on the salaries of officers earning up to £1,200 a year, and 8 per cent. on the salaries of those earning more than £1,200. I ought perhaps to explain to your Lordships that the Whitley Council in question is one of nine Councils in the Health Service which have been set up to negotiate pay and conditions of service for nearly all grades and types of Health Service staff. They are two-sided bodies, one side representing the staff themselves and the other, the management side, representing the employing authorities, hospitals, executive councils and so on, together with representatives of my two right honourable friends. I want to make it clear to your Lordships that these are negotiating and not, as is frequently thought, arbitrating bodies. The arbitration normally comes in only if and when the two sides of the Whitley Council fail to reach agreement. The other point I must bring to your Lordships' attention is that agreements reached by the Health Service Whitley Councils are not final decisions. They are, in essence, recommendations to my two right honourable friends, who have a statutory duty to decide whether to approve them or not before they can come into operation.
  On October 11 the management side of the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Council considered the claim and made an offer of 3 per cent. to the officers earning up to £1,200 a year and 5 per cent. to those earning over that figure. I ought perhaps to mention that the former had already had an increase of 3 per cent. around the beginning of this year. I must also make it clear to your Lordships that before this offer was made the official representatives on the management side—that is, the representatives of my right honourable friends—advised very strongly against it.
  We have recently had in this House an interesting and informed debate on the present delicate economic position of the country and the Government's policy to

  361
  remedy it. I need not weary your Lordships by repeating the arguments which were advanced at length in that debate. It is perhaps enough for me to say that my right honourable friends, through their representatives, made it abundantly clear to the management side of this Whitley Council that to offer any increase to the administrative and clerical staff up to £1200 a year would be wholly incompatible with the Government's determination to check the inflationary spiral of wages and prices, and they pressed hard, therefore, that no offer should be made. I should also like to remind your Lordships of what my noble and learned friend the Lord President of the Council said last week: that the management side were told clearly—and I emphasise "told clearly"—that if an offer was made, my right honourable friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland might find it necessary to withhold their approval. Nevertheless, the advice of the official representatives was not taken. As the noble Viscount said, they are in a minority on the management side, occupying only five seats out of a total of eighteen, and of course they were outvoted.
  The management side made their offer of 3 per cent. and the staff accepted it. The management side offered also an increase of 5 per cent. for the group of officers over £1,200 a year, but to this the Government felt less objection, since these officers had been out of line with the general trend of salary movements by a much wider margin and for a much longer period—their last increase was in February, 1956, whereas the officers under £1,200 a year had received an increase last December and January.
  The agreement was then submitted, like all other Health Service Whitley agreements, to my right honourable friends. They took the view that the increases agreed were unquestionably of an inflationary nature, and, for the reasons I have already made clear, they felt that they had no alternative but to withhold their approval. They decided, however—this is an important point—to give at the same lime an undertaking to review the question after an appropriate interval of time: in other words, their decision was not a rejection of the agreement for all time it was rather in the nature of a deferment.
  362
  I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friends reached their decision with a natural and lively regret. They are fully aware that the management sides of the Whitley Councils, as the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, suggested, are responsible bodies of men and women who have the true interests of the Health Service at heart and whose actions are determined by what they, as good and responsible employers, believe to be right. But the majority of the management side members have no responsibility for finding any of the money to finance the National Health Service and, in particular, to pay for wage increases. That responsibility, which is the responsibility to the taxpayer, rests on my two right honourable friends and ultimately on Parliament. My right honourable friends are obliged, therefore, to look at these questions in a wider context than the National Health Service—the context of our national economy as a whole and of the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government for dealing with the economic difficulties and dangers impending.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the most detailed and careful reply that the noble Lord is making, as he always does. Must I understand from hearing what he has said in the last minute or two of his statement, that the decision in this case was taken just as a block decision, without any consideration of the merits and of the standard of life of the people concerned? Surely that is as much a responsibility of Ministers and Parliament as is any other question involved. Am I to understand, too, from the way in which the noble Lord is now speaking, that bodies such as those which have conic within my experience in Government administration—the councils that operate in the Royal Naval dockyards, in the Royal Ordnance Department and in the Mechanical Department of the Royal Air Force—are all to be treated in the same way as this one by Her Majesty's Government? That would bring them into immediate conflict with all the great industrial and engineering trade unions in the country.
  LORD MANCROFT: I hope to deal with that point in a few moments. If I weary the noble Viscount I will apologise, but I thought it was necessary to repeat the facts to your Lordships, and I should

  363
  like to do so. I make no apology for repeating in this case the remarks of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said in another place on October 29 that the Government, where they are themselves the employers—and in the Health Service they are, of course, essentially in the position of an employer, since they have to find the money—should seek to follow policies similar to those which they urge upon others. My Lords, it has been freely said by noble Lords opposite and elsewhere that the Government's decision constitutes an attack by the Government on the free processes of collective bargaining. It constitutes nothing of the sort.
  LORD BURDEN:Only on the result, I take it.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it constitutes nothing of the sort. if the noble Lord will bear with me I will explain to him why. The machinery for settling pay in the National Health Service has two stages: first, negotiation by the Whitley Councils; second, approval by my right honourable friends. The duty imposed on my right honourable friends by Parliament to approve or disapprove the negotiated agreements is a built-in part of the machinery itself, and the fact that my right honourable friends have exercised the power given them by Parliament to disapprove is in no sense an attack on Whitley standards.
  The point which has occurred to your Lordships, and which noble Lords opposite have raised, is, can this happen again? Will my right honourable friends again find it necessary to withhold their approval from duly negotiated agreements? My Lords, I can give no categorical answer to that question. Every one of these agreements is looked at when it comes to my right honourable friends on its particular merits—the noble Lord will please bear that in mind: on its particular merits—and in the context of economic conditions and of the Government's policy at the time. I hope that this present case will have made two things clear: first, that the Government means what it says—that its determination to put an end to inflation is vastly more than an empty catch-phrase. Secondly, I hope that this case will have helped to bring home to both employers
  364
  and employees, not only in the Health Service Whitley councils but in negotiating bodies throughout the public services and, indeed, in industry, that the national economy is a vital factor which must be taken into account by both sides in all pay negotiations at the present time. My Lords, it is in the interests of every one of us—Government, employers and workers—that inflation should be stopped. I hope that from now on the interests of those who have to pay the bill, the taxpayers, the unheard party in arbitration proceedings, will be clearly in the minds of all parties to all wage negotiations.
  This brings me to the question of arbitration in this particular case. I am told that my right honourable and learned friend and my right honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland discussed the possibility of arbitration with representatives of the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council on Monday afternoon. There is at present, in the technical sense, no dispute giving rise to arbitration, but it is still possible that such an issue will arise in connection with this particular claim and nothing that my right honourable and learned friend said to the deputation which saw him on Monday excludes that possibility. and nothing he or any Minister has said excludes appropriate consideration by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour of an arbitrable issue on this case, if one is put forward.
  Your Lordships will be aware that some of the unions representing the administrative and clerical staffs of the Health Service have decided to take direct action, to impose a ban on the working of overtime by their members as from next Monday and, I believe, to take further steps designed to embarrass my right honourable friends. I can only deplore this decision. As I have said. my right honourable friends discussed with representatives of the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council on Monday afternoon the possibility of arbitration, and it seems—I repeat, it seems—that the unions concerned went straight to their decision from the conference room, without waiting to consider whether any more peaceable methods which might be open to them would not be preferable. And, my Lords, who is going to suffer as a result

  365
  of direct action of this kind in the Health Service? Statements which I have seen published say that nothing would be done which would prejudice the interests of patients. But is that possible?
  LORD BURDEN: Do not make the matter worse. Remember what I said in my speech: nothing would be done to disrupt the hospital service. Do not make matters worse.
  LORD MANCROFT: No doubt, my Lords, there will not immediately be serious results for the patients. But when we remember that the Health Service itself is provided by Statute by my right honourable friends for the benefit of the patients alone, surely anything done to embarrass the Government or my right honourable friends must, in the long run, tell against the patients.
  Another point about which noble Lords have asked questions, and on which public concern is exercised, is the effect of my right honourable friends' decision on recruitment to the National Health Service. In a time of full employment the Health Service, in common with all other public services, is in competition with industry, and difficulties of recruitment, especially of young people to the lower-paid grades, are inevitable. This is, of course, a difficult point and one which was certainly not overlooked by my right honourable friends in reaching this decision.
  Your Lordships may be aware, however, that at the beginning of this year Sir Noel Hall, Principal of the Administrative Staff College at Henley-on-Thames, accepted the invitation of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to conduct an investigation into the present grading structure and career prospects of the administrative and clerical staffs of the Hospital Service. Sir Noel has submitted his report to my right honourable friends, and it is already before the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council. The report is to be published within the next fortnight. It will be the task of the Whitley Council to devise a new grading structure in the light of Sir Noel's recommendations and to fit to it appropriate wage and salary scales. When the two sides have reached an agreement it will be submitted to the Government, and it will be considered on its own merits and
  366
  in the light of all the circumstances at that future time. In short, the Government's decision on this 3 per cent. increase is not to be regarded as automatically ruling out approval to a new grading and pay structure in the Health Set-vice expressly designed to improve career prospects.
  My Lords, let me try to sum up the points that have been raised and put to your Lordships again, as shortly as I can, the reasons which have prompted the Government to come to this decision—a decision which they are perfectly certain is a correct one. First, my right honourable friends' decision is a necessary part of the Government's present wage policy: secondly, it is not an attack on the free processes of collective bargaining—still less an attack on the system of arbitration, in which the Government have repeatedly affirmed their belief. Nor, let me assure noble Lords opposite, is it a test case, a singling out of the relatively powerless white-collared workers instead of one of the powerful industrial groups. And lastly, my Lords, it will, I hope, serve as a symbol—a symbol of the absolute need to-day that both parties to all these negotiations—not merely the Government, not merely the employers, but both sides—should join together in the struggle, not against each other but against inflation, which if unchallenged may well destroy us all.
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords. I had no intention of intervening in this debate, which has probably included everything on both sides which is relevant to the issue; but the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made one omission in the course of his speech, which seems to me to be the crux of the position. I did not take down his precise words but he said something of this kind: that the proposal to increase the higher grades' wages by 5 per cent. was justified because they were more out of step with the wages paid in private service than were the wages of these particular people who are receiving below £1,200 a year. That means to say, if words have any meaning, that the people receiving below £1,200 a year were out of step, but that the people receiving above £1,200 a year were more out of step. As I understand the whole Whitley machinery, from my experience it was

  367
  one of the rules that the people in the Civil Service were entitled to get the same wages as people in comparable employment outside.
  Evidently the people in this particular Whitley Council came to the conclusion—and it is supported by the inference from the noble Lord's speech just now—that the people in the Health part of the Civil Service were out of step and were not getting equivalent wages to those of people not in the Civil Service. I intervene, because I think that this is not only a blow at the procedure of Whitley Councils but injurious to the whole Civil Service. If the civil servant is led to believe that he is not going to get equal justice with people in private employment it will mean that the Civil Service will fall into disrepute, and that is something I should be very sorry to see.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that this was not to be taken as an attack on all arbitration and all collective bargaining. But he cannot get away from the fact it is a blow at the principle on which Whitley Councils are based. I think it is. If it is the argument that civil servants are not to get an equivalent wage to that of people working for private employers, that is a blow at the whole principle of the Whitley Council arrangement, and therefore I shall support whatever action the noble Leader on this side of the House proposes to take in this matter.
  4.8 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has not given us a shadow of hope that the Government will reconsider their decision. And it is surely unique that someone on these Benches should have to appeal to the noble Lord not to inflame views in the Service, as he was attempting to do when I appealed to him not to make matters worse by the things he was saying.
  LORD MANCROFT: I disagree entirely with what the noble Lord says. He has no right whatever to make that accusation against me.
  LORD BURDEN: It is not the only thing with which the noble Lord disagrees. The only things he did not disagree with were the things he repeated from my own words with regard to the machinery. The rest he disagreed with—and of course I do not complain about it. But, my Lords,
  368
  I charge Her Majesty's Government with a breach of Parliamentary assurances, a breach of faith—of assurances given first of all by the Labour Government and, secondly, during the lifetime of the present Government. It will not take me two minutes to read those assurances to prove my words. This is the Labour Minister's statement, given at the time when the regulations of 1951 were before Parliament:
  "The Minister wishes to say that the object of the regulations is to enable a more solid legal foundation to be given to national rates of pay and other conditions of service and to ensure the application"—
  please note that the words were "ensure the application", not "stop the application"—
  "of such rates and conditions by hospital authorities. The regulations do not supersede in any way the work of the Whitley Councils in regard to remuneration and conditions of service in the National Health Service and the Minister would not wish the Whitley Councils to be in any doubt on that score."
  That is a firm and definite declaration that the regulations were simply to legalise the work of the Whitley Councils.
  Secondly, there was this declaration by Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as recently as February 8. 1956 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. Vol. 548, Col. 1763]:
  "The Whitley Councils are established on a recognised principle of negotiation, of joint councils of employers and employees. I have been somewhat surprised this week to hear … hon. Members suggesting that the Minister should intervene. In view of the authority that he carries"—
  and may I ask noble Lords to note particularly this statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry?—
  "intervention could only mean that one way or the other he would be over-riding decisions. It would be a complete contradiction of what we accept as joint negotiating machinery if he were to do so. My right hon. Friend believes it would be quite improper for him to intervene in these negotiations."
  My Lords, in view of those Parliamentary assurances from both Parties, I now say that whoever among the Members of this House may be willing to accompany me into the Division Lobby, I shall be happy to have him with me.
  On Question, Whether there shall be laid before the House Papers relating to the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations of the National Whitley (Administrative and Clerical Officers) Council?
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 57.

  CONTENTS

  Attlee, E.

  Stansgate, V.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

  Kenswood, L.

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Archibald, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Burden, L.

  Mathers, L. [Teller.]

  Addison, V.

  Chorley, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Darwen, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Hall, V.

  Faringdon, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Wise, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Gifford, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

  Davidson, V.

  Harris, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Hastings, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

  Iliffe, L.

  Lansdowne, M. [Teller.]

  Gage, V.

  Jessel, L.

  Willingdon, M.

  Margesson, V.

  Lyle of Westbourne, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Soulbury, V.

  Middleton, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Templewood, V.

  Milverton, L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Newall, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Baden-Powell, L.

  Rugby, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Salter, L.

  Elgin and Kincardine, E.

  Birdwood, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Home, E.

  Blackford, L.

  Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Strang, L.

  Onslow, E.[Teller.]

  Cawley, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Perth, E.

  Chesham, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Conesford, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Dovercourt, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

  THE BANK RATE INCREASE: TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY
  4.25 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME rose to move to resolve, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, whether there is any justification for allegations that information about the raising of Bank Rate was improperly disclosed to any person, and whether if there was any such disclosure any use was made of such information for the purpose of private gain. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution as it stands under my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will recall that these matters to which the Resolution refers arose from certain rumours or innuendoes which suggested that certain persons had foreknowledge of a change that was to be made in the bank rate.
  The House will recall the earlier stages, during which it was revealed that the rumours arose from what I might fairly call casual conversations, really tittle-
  370
  tattle, between persons who could not possibly have had foreknowledge and were merely being wise after the event. After an informal inquiry, which was conducted by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister decided that there was no prima facie case for an investigation. To-day there is no new evidence.
  Your Lordships may fairly ask: is there then a change in the situation and why does the Prime Minister now recommend an investigation which he refused before? The answer to that is that lately in another place imputations of a most damaging character have been made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Oliver Poole. In the case of Mr. Poole, who is not a Member of another place, he has no redress open to him. These imputations, as your Lordships know, are of a most serious character, because I think that it is true to say that the Budget and the bank rate occupy a very special place in the public mind. They are in a different category from any other financial operations which are matters of national concern. It is on what amount to charges of a leak of information that my right honourable

  371
  friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Poole are entitled to ask for a clear and decisive judgment and answer. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Prime Minister decided that there was no alternative but to have an inquiry.
  The Tribunal proposed will be set up by the Home Secretary under the Act of 1921. It will be presided over by one of Her Majesty's Judges, assisted by two eminent lawyers. The powers of the Tribunal, in the matters of the attendance of witnesses and production of documents, will be the same as those of the High Court, and they will have at their disposal the services of the Treasury Solicitor. From the Resolution on the Order Paper your Lordships will see that the terms of reference of the Tribunal have been drawn deliberately so as to cover not only the cases of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Poole, but the whole field of what might be called the bank rate incident.
  It will be for the Tribunal to judge and decide whom they call, but there is no limit whatever on the evidence that could be called. Such a public inquiry into so serious a matter is not to be undertaken lightly, and I hope that in all the circumstances your Lordships will feel that Her Majesty's Government have acted properly in recognising the right of private individuals, whose honour and honesty have been questioned, to defend their integrity, and the right of the public to be entirely satisfied by the findings of a Tribunal of the highest character and standing. I hope that your Lordships' House will be able to approve unanimously the terms of the Resolution on the Order Paper. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say. whether there is any justification for allegations that information about the raising of Bank Rate was improperly disclosed to any person, and whether if there was any such disclosure any use was made of such information for the purpose of private gain.—(The Earl of Home.)
  4.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House
  372
  for the manner in which he has moved this Motion. It is a great pity that this matter of "definite and urgent importance" (in the words of the Motion) should have to be raised as late as November 14, having regard to the actual date on which it became the centre of the stories and gossip which led to the doubts that have arisen. It is fundamental in our history as a Parliamentary institution that anything which seems in any way to touch the integrity or honour of any Member of our Houses should, if necessary, be inquired into at once.
  It is not for me at this stage to deal at all with the merits of the case which is to be inquired into; as I said earlier this week. I think it would be wrong to do that. The nature of the Tribunal set up under the National Tribunals Act is such that we should regard everything now connected with it as subject to the proper and respectful use of the term "sub judice"; and that is how we propose to treat it. I think, however, that it was convenient for the noble Earl the Leader of the House to arrange for the postponement of this Motion until this stage in our proceedings to-day, because it has enabled us to see what happened in another place. Among my colleagues in another place (I feel that this should be said) there was a strong feeling that there should perhaps be some widening of the terms of reference. That has been debated in another place. and the Motion has been passed, I believe, on the assurance by Mr. Speaker that the terms of reference could be reckoned to be wide enough to cover all the matters which are likely to arise: and I am reinforced in that view by what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has just said.
  I would only add this. Every Government is always liable to have this kind of incident to deal with. It is most important, especially when it is remembered that this matter was general gossip in the City, and was written about in certain organs of the Press, two months ago, that in matters of this kind the action which Her Majesty's Government are now, rightly, taking should be taken at the earliest possible moment. With that final remark, I may say that we accede to the Motion.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl the Leader of the House in hoping that this Motion will go through unanimously in your Lordships' House. I differ slightly from the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition in that I do not consider that this step should have been taken earlier. Circumstances have changed. They were difficult some time ago, and the action taken by the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, seemed to be very good action;
  374
  it is only recent events which have brought the matter to such a pitch that the present arrangements seem to be necessary. I feel that, in one sense, this matter concerns another place much more than it does your Lordships' House, and in that sense I join with the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition in regarding it as very much sub judice. I trust that the Motion will pass unanimously.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.