§ 3.0 p.m.
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how the proposals contained in Cmnd. 3888, In Place of Strife, would help to deal with the Post Office telegraphists' strike.]
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, the White Paper makes no proposals to prevent an official strike embarked upon after a ballot of union members, as in this case, unless the strike is unconstitutional, when a 28-day conciliation pause may be ordered at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Perhaps, before asking him a further question arising from it, I may take the opportunity to congratulate him and his right honourable friend the Minister of Employment and Productivity upon having introduced the measures in the document we are discussing towards dealing with industrial relations it this country. The supplementary question I should first like to ask is: is it true that the disputes procedure agreement between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Postmaster General requires recourse to arbitration at this stage in the dispute before strike action? Because if it does not, then we are dealing with a constitutional and an official strike. I think it would be helpful to get that clear first.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the noble Lord is embarking on a very technical area. You cannot compel people in these circumstances to go to arbitration. It would be highly desirable that they should do so, but if they do not it does not necessarily mean that this is an unconstitutional strike. I would rather go no further than that. Of the desirability that they should go to arbitration I have no doubt; but the Union have decided otherwise.
§ LORD SANDFORDThen I think we may assume, from what the noble Lord has said, that we are dealing with an official strike, and a constitutional strike at that. The question then that I should like to ask is: does the noble Lord feel that it is in the national interest for a strike in this area to be allowed even to start, still less to continue and still less, again, to be extended by the Post Office telephonists coming out on strike, which is the matter which the Union are considering to-day?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's kindly remarks at the beginning, I regret to have to say that I regard his last question as not a very helpful one in the context of trying to solve an industrial problem. I am not sure what he would advocate in this matter, but this is an area where great delicacy is necessary; where it is essential to understand the different points of view. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General has indicated his willineness to meet the Union at any time. The fact that there is no easy solution to a particular problem—and the White Paper does not set out to provide a solution to any problem—does not mean that there will not be a prospect of improving relations generally. Indeed, I think that if the noble Lord were wearing a different hat, or a different collar, he would not suggest that because sin continues in the world the Christian religion is failing.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOMMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the issue here is not one of wages but one of proper payment for productivity; and are not the Union justified in the belief that the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal cannot competently deal with an issue which deals with productivity and not with wages?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, who is such a distinguished individual, experienced in trade union relations, should regard it as helpful that a discussion on technical questions of productivity should be conducted on the Floor of the House rather than through proper negotiating machinery. It is a very complex subject indeed. The actual proposals for the 5 per cent., as opposed to the subsequent productivity increases which are asked for, are in certain respects on a different basis; but I would rather not be drawn.
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, the last thing I wanted to do was to draw the noble Lord into expressing any opinion about the merits of this case. That was not my aim in asking the Question. But as he has invited me to go into the theological area I will gladly do so, and I should want to point out—
§ LORD SANDFORDI would ask whether the noble Lord is aware that in these matters, as in so many others, we need to have a balance between gospel and law, and it is the law I am concerned with? Would he not agree that this is an illustration of the importance (if it is not actually essential) of Her Majesty's Government having available to deal with exactly this kind of situation the power selectively to refer to the industrial court, after an inquiry, an application for an injunction to stop strike action for two months or more while these issues are being decided? Is it not true that the Minister has not included this power in her armoury, in her present proposals, and that this is what many of us think is essential?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, it clearly is necessary that at an early date we should find an opportunity for debating this whole question. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is proposing that the Government of the day should take powers infinitely more Draconian than those they have already taken. I doubt whether he is speaking officially for the Conservative Party whose statements have been singularly obscure on the subject. However, I do not think that we can proceed by question and answer on such a complex subject: it would be far better for us to discuss it. 933 I would only ask him to consult the general Epistle of James, Chapter III, Verse 16, on this.
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I should be very glad to do that, if the noble Lord would reciprocate by agreeing to study Fair Deal at Work, which has the proposal I have just been mentioning laid down in great precision.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I must say that I would not have put a Conservative Central Office document in quite the same category as the New Testament.