HL Deb 11 February 1971 vol 315 cc262-8

4.10 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now reply to the Private Notice Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dela-court-Smith; and I shall use the words used by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment in another place. He said:

"Since I reported to the House on February 4, I have continued to keep in close touch with the situation, and my Department contacted both the Union and the Post Office as recently as this morning. These contacts have confirmed that both sides still hold firmly to their previous positions.

"I reaffirm my readiness to hold further discussions with the parties just as soon as I have any indications that this would be useful, but I regret to tell the House that my judgment is that any intervention on my part at this juncture would not achieve the result which we all desire.

"I shall of course continue to keep in touch with both sides, and I repeat my promise to keep the House informed as soon as there is anything to report."

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, I am sure we wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for repeating that Statement, but I feel that many noble Lords will find it a profoundly disappointing one. Arising from it, perhaps I may put some questions to the noble Lord, who I think knows of my long and continuing association with Post Office trade unionism? First, would he not agree that the fact that 200,000 of our fellow citizens, members of a Union which does not have strike pay and has not a tradition of striking, have remained on strike for between three and four weeks, indicates that there is a widespread and deep sense of grievance, the existence of which ought to be recognised?

Further, is it really his position, and the position of his right honourable friend, that the publication of the Wilberforce Report introduces no new element at all into the situation? I ask that specifically as a prelude to a further question. The Minister said in his Statement that he had kept in touch with the parties. Would be not confirm, as a result of this contact with the parties, that while the Union concerned has repeatedly emphasised its flexible approach and its willingness to negotiate, the Post Office Corporation, right up to the time of the Statement made this morning, and after the publication of the Wilberforce Report, has not departed in the slightest degree from the position it took up before the dispute began?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am sure we all share the noble Lord's disapointment that it has not been possible to bring the two parties together, that they have not come together so far, and that there has been no end to the strike. The noble Lord asked me whether the circumstances which he mentioned do not indicate a widespread and deep sense of grievance. My Lords, this is a matter for the two parties to thresh out together. He asked me whether the publication of the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry Report introduced any new element. To that I must say, "No"—for this reason. The Wilberforce Court of Inquiry made quite clear that they were dealing with the specific circumstances of the industry into which they were inquiring. They made quite clear on what grounds—for example, grounds of productivity and the like—they were making their recommendations.

The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked me, finally, to contrast the willingness of the workers' side to come to negotiation with the refusal of the other side to move from their present position. The fact remains that until there is some indication of a willingness on both sides to accept some form of arbitration—call it whatever you like—there is no means, in view of the gulf between them, of bringing the two parties' views into line.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, are we to take it from what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said that the strike is to continue indefinitely? Is the noble Lord not aware of the very serious effect of the strike on the business community of this country, apart from human hardship caused by the inability of people and families to communicate? Is it not a fact, too, that the Wilberforce Report showed quite clearly that there were many problems, and many cases where the workers in that industry have real cause for complaint; and that it looks from the Wilberforce Report that this can be put right? Is it not time for the Minister to bring the two sides together; to start immediately to bring them together, and to make them talk? My Lords, until they are made to talk there will be no solution.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, as I said yesterday it is a question for the Minister to judge at what point it is possible to bring the two sides together. And as I said in the Statement that I repeated, he will do so as soon as he sees any prospect of anything useful coming out of his so doing.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord must surely accept that if his right honourable friend were to call the two sides together, to meet in his office, they would come. Will the noble Lord accept that it appears to be the feeling among many on the workers' side that it is the Government's intention that they shall be brought to their knees? I do not believe it is, but while this situation exists there will not be a settlement.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, there cannot be any question of the workers' being brought to their knees so long as they do not accept what appears to be the obligation upon them to go to arbitration. If they will accept that, then of course the two parties will automatically be brought together.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, did not the noble Lord see yesterday the statement alleged to have been made by the acting Chairman of the Post Office? When the Minister of Labour called him and the General Secretary of the Post Office workers together previously the acting Chairman of the Post Office is alleged to have stated that he attended that meeting only for public relations and political purposes, and had no intention whatever of entering negotiations? To one who was associated with industrial affairs for many years that seems a very bad statement for the chairman of one side to make during a dispute.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is going to quote what the acting Chairman of the Post Office said, he should quote it with complete accuracy. I have not before me the actual words the Chairman used, but I have seen in the newspapers what he is reported to have said—

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, I said "alleged".

LORD DRUMALBYN

—and it does not coincide with what the noble Lord has said. I do not think it would be right to take this into consideration. Nor would my right honourable friend for one instant start to criticise the actions of one side or the other at a time when the necessity is to bring them together.

4.19 p.m.

LORD CITRINE

My Lords, is it not the fact that the Government, through the Prime Minister, have declared that their policy is totally opposed to so-called inflationary wage settlements? Is it not the fact that the Prime Minister has also said that that doctrine is applied particularly to the public industries? How in those circumstances is it possible that the chairmen of nationalised industries can fail to be influenced by the Government statement? That is the first point. The second point is: are the facts not in parallel between the dispute in the electricity supply industry and that in the Post Office? Is it not the fact that in both cases as a consequence of the strike there is a very great deal of public inconvenience, and indeed industrial loss?

Further, is it not the fact that in both cases the unions have refused to go to arbitration, which they regard, in consequence of the statements of the Government, as wholly biased? Is it not also the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment has it in his power to appoint a Court of Inquiry, just as he did in the case of electricity, which would enable the parties to come together, whether or not they agree to the broad arbitration principles? Is it not a fact that the Post Office workers have no material means of support from their Union in this strike and that it looks very much as if what the Government are aim- ing at is to starve these people into some kind of settlement?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, that, if I may say so, is a very good advocacy of the case on one side; but I cannot agree that the facts are as stated. There are so many wide differences between this case and the case of the electricity workers. For one thing, the electricity workers were "going slow", whereas the Post Office workers are on strike. For another thing, it was at the request of the workers that there was a Court of Inquiry into the electricity dispute. No one has ever maintained that arbitration was biased in this case. I think that one must distinguish these cases entirely, as indeed the Court of Inquiry did.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, may I put one point to the Minister? We all are longing to see something done that will bring the parties together and bring this dispute to an end. I think we all appreciate that there must be great strength of feeling when people can stay on strike when they are not receiving any subsistence, any strike pay. Instead of bandying about quotations, which may or may not have been used, would it not be a useful measure for the Minister to have both sides together in his presence and to put quite simply to them. "Are you prepared to go to arbitration on this matter?" I do not think that that has been done. Surely it would be useful for both sides to meet, not merely in order to elicit information but also so that the general public may know—because, after all, public opinion is a tremendous force in these matters—that both sides have been confronted and had their points of view put.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. I think that, if I take the feeling of the House on this matter, it is that I should carry that suggestion—which, if I may say so, is a modification and improvement on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—to my right honourable friend, and lf hope that something good will come out of it.

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister is going to do this. But he said in a previous reply that there was a difference between the two cases: that in one case there was a go-slow, and in the other a strike; that in the instance of the go-slow, it would appear justifiable to have a Court of inquiry, but not in the case of the strike. I may be misunderstanding the Minister—I see that he is shaking his head. However, will he bear this in mind when talking to his right honourable friend?

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, as regards the last question, am I not right in my recollection that before the Inquiry was held the go-slow was called off?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, it was really part of the setting up of the Inquiry that the go-slow should be called off. I should not like to enter into the question which the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, has raised, because I have been asked whether a great many things were facts and the general outcome of my answer to that series of questions was that the two cases were not entirely on the same level.

BARONESS BIRK

My Lords, when the noble Lord said that the parties should try to get together, did that indicate that they were going along parallel lines and never meeting. I wonder how long the Government are going to let this situation continue. Is it not the duty of a Government to govern at some time? And is this dispute going on for months and months? In answer to a question by another noble Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he would take the suggestion back to his right honourable friend. Why on earth has not his right honourable friend thought of it before?—unless this was just something to placate the House?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I be allowed to answer that last question first? I hoped that we were reaching some kind of agreement about what the House wishes me to do. The point is simply that in the opinion of the House it would be appropriate for me, as my noble friend has asked, that I should represent to the Minister that he should bring both sides together and ask them why they should not go to arbitration. That is what I have been asked to do, and that is what I will do.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, while I appreciate that we have spent some time on this matter, and while I appreciate the desire of the noble Lord to be helpful, may I put to him one final point? I think I should be expressing the will of the House correctly if I asked the noble Lord, when he represents these views to his right honourable friend, not to confine them to the specific point of going to arbitration. There is so much which can be said about procedural difficulties—indeed, this ground was covered in earlier meetings with his right honourable friend. I hope that the noble Lord will put to his right honourable friend the need for the Minister himself to try to suggest that the parties should introduce some degree of flexibility in the way in which they proceed to resolve their difficulties, both in the interests of the Post Office and in the interests of the public.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I shall certainly convey that also to my right honourable friend. Perhaps I might mention that my right honourable friend did say in another place at an earlier stage that he still did not rule out any form of investigating inquiry, and both sides are well aware of that. So the door is still open, and perhaps I may suggest to the House that the two sides should be invited to go through it.