VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGHMy Lords, could Her Majesty's Government tell us what communication has been sent to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding today's wage negotiations?
§ 4.2 p.m.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT(LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, the communication to which the Question refers was sent yesterday by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, and also to the General Secretaries of the National Union of Railwaymen, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. It has already been published in full in the Press. It reads as follows:
The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission has at present under consideration.In the Government's view, two considerations arc paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961 has exceeded £140 million, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government arc bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained in Parliament in recent months, and in his letter of January 10, 1962, to the Trades Union Congress, the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in in-comes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962, when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.Against this background it cannot be easy for the Government to ask Parliament to find additional funds at this time to provide any increase in railway wages. But the Government recognise that there are special factors which warrant some limited increase in the remuneration of railway workers which should in no event take effect before April I, 1962.859In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration".My Lords, that is the text. The main purpose of the communication was to ensure that, without departing from the machinery established under the Agreement on the Machinery of Negotiation for Railway Staff, full regard should be paid to the financial and economic difficulties with which the nation and the railways themselves are faced at the present time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who made that reply whether he is aware that the reference of this matter to arbitration in the present circumstances is quite extraordinary, after what has already happened? Here we are, getting all our letters, in some cases letters on urgent business, five, six or seven days late, as a result of the action of the Postmaster General, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and you bring another threat upon us in regard to this very important section of the transport arrangements of this country. Here is a case where the governing, body of the Transport Commission has made an offer, a specific offer, to the workers in this industry. It has already referred to the date when it thinks it will operate. But the Minister jumps in between, without giving the workers in the industry any opportunity to continue negotiations on either the amount or the date. I think that is a most extraordinary confirmation of the stupidity of the Government and the way in which they have acted in regard to what has always been well-recognised procedure.
§ VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORNMy Lords, may I suggest that this is really an occasion where we should bear in mind the importance of allowing industrial activities in this country to manage their own business, whether it be I.C.I., Courtaulds, or the nationalised railways? The sooner the railways are broken up into four separate groups, managing their own affairs and not under nationalisation, the better it will be for the convenience of the British public.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, we are getting to the stage where a large 860 number of questions are being asked, and I think my noble friend had better deal with one set before taking on another.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I was not entirely surprised by the reaction of the noble Viscount opposite, but I must make it perfectly clear—and I think I should be misleading the House if I did not do so—that I cannot quite fathom what it is he is driving at when he accuses the Government of in some way blocking a specific offer which has been made to the railway unions. It is news to me that there is any specific offer under consideration. I must impress upon your Lordships that we have a difficult and unusual set of circumstances in the large deficit which has to he met each year. The Government formed the view that the most satisfactory course was for the matter to go before arbitration in the circumstances laid down, which is in no way stepping outside the agreed machinery, and for the issue to go to arbitration. The Government felt that it was only fair to both parties to make their views known before the meeting which is taking place to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. But is it not a fact that negotiations were going to take place to-day in relation to the offer to which I referred—negotiations on the amount?
§ LORD CHESHAMNo, My Lords. As I understand it, certain requests had been made by the union concerned, and at the meetings to-day the unions, as I understand it, were expecting to hear an answer from the British Transport Commission, not to discuss some specific offer which the B.T.C. had made.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, while we should all, I think, accept the importance of the very grave financial situation of the railways, there is one point which is puzzling many of us. As I understand it—if I may put this in the form of a question—the ordinary position, whether it is in the railways or in any other industry where there is a normal conciliation process, is that negotiations should take place between the management and the unions concerned. Then, if those negotiations break down, the matter should go to arbitration. With 861 respect, I do not see that there is any objection to the Government's making plain what they regard as matters which, in the national interest, have to be considered.
What I should like the Minister to make clear to the House is this. Why in this case was it necessary to intervene in the process of discussion between the commercial management and the unions, and to override all that and send the matter to arbitration? Is it not probable that, if that has been done in this case, it may have a very serious effect upon the whole process of negotiation and arbitration throughout industry?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, if I may say so, when the noble Earl comes to read my earlier replies I think the matter will become quite clear to him. I should make this absolutely clear because I thought—I am sorry if I do him an injustice—that I detected a slight note of compulsion in this matter. Had the communication that I read out to your Lordships been in some sense a direction, I think that what the noble Earl said would be, perhaps, better justified. But I thought I had made it clear why the Government, because of the financial position of the nation, and because of the bad position of the railways themselves, had formed the view that, in order to take all the relevant factors which I mentioned into consideration, they should ask for the matter to go to arbitration. My Lords, I do not think that that can really be written off as intervention or interference.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that, among at least two of the railway trade unions, the trade union leaders have had quite distinct trouble in keeping their membership within the bounds of the machinery? There has been a desire among some of the membership to go outside the machinery, but the trade union leaders, quite faithfully, and with a great deal of success, have kept negotiations within the machinery. This action of the Minister, in intervening while the machinery is still proceeding, destroys the stand of the trade union leaders and is a help to those subservient elements who would like direct action.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he 862 has pointed out, and again I think that it would perhaps be more justified if the Minister had attempted positively to interfere with the agreed processes of negotiation. But, as I said, the point of this particular communication was that he was extremely careful to keep within the bounds of the negotiating process.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, is it not the case in this instance that the Minister has really resorted to a general direction under the law, which I know he is entitled to make? But is that not in conflict with the electricity case in which, when he was challenged for letting the electricity matter go, he said that he had no power to give a direction to these Boards? Does this not mean that this is a direction; and, if the British Transport Commission are in financial trouble, has that not been caused in part by the legislation of the Government in taking road commercial transport away from them? If the Government rely on the fact that in this industry there is a deficit, what does the noble Lord say about the Post Office where there is no deficit, and where the Government have also interfered with the normal processes of negotiation? Could we have from the Parliamentary Secretary something like a straightening-out of these various contradictions?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord cannot have heard my last answer but one.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHI did, but I do not agree with it.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, if the noble Lord heard that answer, I can only think that he must have chosen deliberately to misunderstand it, because what I said and where the noble Lord was perfectly right—was that this is not a direction; indeed, as the noble Lords said, there is no power to direct in this matter. Perhaps, if the noble Lord will have the courtesy to read this statement when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that for himself. But I must make it plain, and any one of your Lordships who has heard what I read out or takes the trouble to read it will see, that this is not a direction. As the noble Lord said, there is no power to give a direction on this matter. It is just no good for the 863 noble Lord to continue to refer to it as a direction, which it is not.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, does it not follow from that, that if there is no compulsion the Chairman of the Commission is free to reject the advice given him by the Minister and proceed to operate the conciliation machinery?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I do not think that your Lordships could reasonably expect me to answer that question.
§ LORD CHESHAMIf I may have a moment, perhaps I can say why. In my view, that comes under the terms of a hypothetical question and, furthermore, I do not think your Lordships would think it right for me to try to anticipate the result of the meetings that are being held to-day.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, cannot the noble Lord impress upon his colleagues that, whatever may be said in question and answer in this House or in another place, every railwayman in this country knew that the trade union leaders were meeting the Transport Commission this afternoon to receive a reply to the negotiations that have previously taken place? The statement of the Minister will be taken by every railwayman, and pounced upon by subservient elements, to be Governmental interference in the course of wage negotiations.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, if that is so—and I am sorry to think that the noble Lord should have to tell me that it is—I am sure that the noble Lord will be one of those, among many others, who will do their best to see that the true position is properly understood.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGHMy Lords, I should think that my noble friend who has had long experience of railway service has a proper reputation on that matter, but the noble Lord opposite really cannot expect to ask him to take a line against the proper action of trade union leaders in their own unions in this respect. I think that they are now entitled to submit their case upon the matter, not only to the Minister but to the public. May 864 I ask this last question? As the Government saw fit to hive off a very important part of the Commission's operations and put it into private enterprise, and if the rule suggested now by the Chancellor is that remuneration and income should be in accordance with production, will the Government now consider giving directions—as they give them to the nationalised bodies—to those who own the private industry which they have handed back?
§ VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORNMy Lords, is it not perfectly clear by now that the man largely responsible for all of this trouble is the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who is sitting on the opposite side of the House and who, through his activities in another place, nationalised these bodies and dragged the Government unwillingly into these negotiations?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships would think it time that I made another statement about a different subject.