§ 4.17 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, with permission, I should like to make a Statement parallel with one that is being made in another place—and I must apologise for not giving notice of this, although I have been able to inform certain noble Lords—concerning the supply of Government publications to Parliament and members of the public.
Although we did not ourselves suffer a delay this morning in the supply of papers, another place did. This is not a matter of which we need directly to take cognisance, but it is perhaps important to inform your Lordships that this delay arose from a ban on overtime by engineers working in St. Stephen's Press, and that this is different from the other dispute of which we are aware. A pay claim by employees working in the Press is at present the subject of negotiations, and I am sure your Lordships will understand that the Government are not in a position to say more on that at this particular moment, as the negotiations are going on.
At the same time, I have kept your Lordships informed about the position arising out of the continuing strike at the publications warehouse of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which has caused some inconvenience, but your Lordships will know the position and in regard to the supply of papers there is no variation 359 from what I announced last week. Recently Ministers saw representatives from the chapel and the London Central branch of the union concerned—the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades—to discuss the dispute, which is about a control formula in a pay and productivity agreement. An offer was made to the union representatives that the disputed clause should be the subject of arbitration, but I regret to say that this offer was rejected. As there has been no further progress, the Government have decided to set up an inquiry forthwith to look into this dispute.
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that Statement. Of course, these two affairs do not yet amount to anything like a national emergency, but I submit that together they amount to a great deal more than mere inconvenience. I would ask the noble Lord two questions. First, at what point does he think that the national interest overrides the interests of the people who are party to this dispute? How long does this have to go on? How many documents that have been published have to pile up in the Stationery Office, unissued, before the national interest overrides other considerations? The second question I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. When we have a stoppage, or even a dispute, in an important public service like the Stationery Office, would it not be wiser to set up a court of inquiry much more promptly? In this case a stoppage has occurred and three weeks have elapsed before an inquiry has been set in motion; and until an inquiry has been set in motion and the facts established no further steps can be taken to get things moving.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I can only say that the noble Lord's remarks scare me a great deal, because he really cannot think about these disputes in these terms, though he can obviously speak in them. Of course a dispute of this kind is serious, but I should not like to say when it becomes a national emergency. The Government—any Government, any employer—do their best in delicate situations to take the right sort of action to try to bring it to an end, but I really do not think I can usefully 360 speculate. I would ask that I should not be pressed on this matter beyond my saying that the Government clearly are doing their utmost in a difficult situation. As to the question about the time when one should set up a special inquiry, that again is a matter for the most delicate judgment.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he will not bring the Army into this.