§ 3.53 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I now reply to the Private Notice Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I will, if I may, reply in the words used in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He said:
"Since my Statement yesterday, there have been two developments. First, the Executive of the Union of Postal Workers decided yesterday to continue the strike. Secondly, Mr. Jackson came to see me at his request to report his executive's decision. Mr. Jackson and I also had a long discussion in the course of which we reviewed from every angle the dispute and possible courses of action which might help to resolve it. We mutually agreed that, given the wide gap between the firmly held positions of the two sides, which have already been intensively explored in previous discussions, a further attempt to conciliate at this juncture would regrettably not result in progress towards a settlement and might be damaging. Mr. Jackson also made clear that the Union's refusal to go to arbitration remained unchanged. While, therefore, neither of us saw immediate scope for a useful initiative, we promised to keep in close touch with each other."
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and may I offer to him and to the House my apologies for being absent from my place when the noble Lord rose to reply: I overestimated the time in another place. This reply is, as my noble friend Lord Champion said yesterday, distressing and it is becoming increasingly alarming. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is aware that this strike, apart from causing very deep and bitter hardship to those who are in the dispute, is also causing considerable difficulties within our business community. I wonder whether 719 the noble Lord can confirm that the nationalised Boards will need Government assistance in order to meet their continuing costs as a consequence of the fact that bills are not being paid. If this is so for the nationalised Boards, what is it like for the medium-sized companies that are already in difficulties because of the economic situation?
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, stressed yesterday, as he did on other occasions, that the Union should go to arbitration and that the employers continually press for that. A Court of Inquiry is possible. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and his right honourable friend, will carefully consider over the weekend whether a Court of Inquiry should not be set up as a matter of urgency to see whether there is not a real basis on which both sides can come to an agreement.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that, as a consequence of a decision made yesterday, it will be increasingly difficult to persuade the Union either to go to arbitration or to go to a Court of Inquiry. The Central Electricity workers were very reluctant to go to a Court of Inquiry because they had a suspicion that the Court would be loaded against them. I think I can speak on behalf of all noble Lords in praising and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and his colleagues, despite tremendous pressures that were put upon them, in producing a Report that was fair, and was regarded as fair by both employers and workers.
I am bound to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the reasons for the Government decision, which every newspaper and political commentator regards as a political sacking, over Professor Clegg, the Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. This Tribunal is one of the most important bodies of arbitration in this country. It seeks to bridge the gap between the Government, to whom the Civil Service must have loyalty, and the Government as employers. No reason has been given for the dismissal (I do not believe there can be any other word for it) of Professor Clegg. It is suggested—and I hope that the noble Lord will give us some further information—that Professor Clegg has been sacked because he became a member of the Scamp Tribunal. Was it that, 720 or was it as a result of the Report of the Scamp Inquiry? If it was membership, will the noble Lord tell me whether Professor Clegg had been cautioned, or informed, before he actually took part in that Tribunal? We on this side of the House believe that this dismissal has been due to the Report of the Scamp Inquiry.
Regarding the postal dispute, two points need to be dealt with here. First, if there is to be arbitration, or a Court of Inquiry, how do the Government now intend to reassure the workers, and the employers, that those who are appointed will be free and independent persons, able to make the judgment on the facts that are made available? And, unless the noble Lord can clear the issue and show that this was not a political sacking, can he tell me how he and the Government expect to get men of distinction and impartiality to accept membership of such Boards, which this country so desperately needs?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, as before, one can only agree with the noble Lord that the continuance of this dispute is very depressing, and is causing hardship to those in the dispute and difficulties for everyone—not only business communities—outside. The noble Lord went on to ask whether, over the weekend, the Government would consider appointing a Court of Inquiry; and he asked, "Is a Court of Inquiry possible?" My Lords, of course a Court of Inquiry would be possible, but the question is whether it would be wise at the existing juncture. Only last week we had the Report of a Court of Inquiry, and that Report made strong recommendations on two issues which affected not only the electricity supply dispute but also the Post Office. The first was that it deplored the union's failure to carry out its agreement to go to arbitration, and the second was that it stressed the need for relating pay increases to specific productivity measures. A Court of Inquiry goes into the principles, and we must accept that fundamental principles cannot constantly be inquired into; one cannot constantly go on digging into the same ground. That was a Report which had very widespread acceptance, and, that being so, surely it is for those taking part in the postal inquiry to look very carefully indeed at what the Wilberforce Report said.
721 From that, the noble Lord went on to ask about what he at one time called "the sacking" and then modified to "the dismissal" of Professor Clegg. There is no question of the sacking of the Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. His appointment came to an end, and when an appointment comes to an end then it is time to review it. But I must make plain that everyone recognises the services that Professor Clegg has given in the sphere of industrial relations. But, quite aside from personalities, there are appointments which are incompatible, and the Government have taken the view, and the Civil Service Official Side has taken the view, that the acceptance by Professor Clegg of nomination as the union's representative on the Inquiry into the pay of local authority manual workers disqualified him from being reappointed as Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in the particular case of the Scamp Inquiry desperate efforts were made by both employees and employers to find a solution, and they came together, without the assistance of the Government, to have a Court of Inquiry. Because Professor Clegg accepted the invitation to sit on that Court of Inquiry, are we to take it that his impartiality as Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal would be in doubt? Is that what the noble Lord is saying? May I ask the noble Lord to reply to the question I put previously: was Professor Clegg informed of the views which the noble Lord expressed before he participated in that Inquiry? When was the decision taken to sack Professor Clegg?
§ LORD SHEPHERDI use the word "sacked" or the word "dismissed", whichever you wish. When was the decision taken?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I do not know whether, before Professor Clegg accepted this nomination, he was consulted in any way. I do not know. But, with all respect, the decision was his. We are here concerned with whether in the future somebody who has accepted nomination as a union's representative should or should not hold office as the independent member of the Civil 722 Service Arbitration Tribunal. Because we know perfectly well that on each side there is a staff nomination and there is a management or official nomination. When the time came to reconsider the appointment, when it was coming to an end, the point was simply whether in the circumstances somebody who had accepted nomination as the union's representative ought to be reappointed. If this had happened the other way round—had it been an Official Side nominee, or, in the case of a dispute in industry, the management side's nominee—then exactly the same objections would have been raised.
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, if it is any comfort to the Government, may I say that, were I still the Minister of Economic Affairs, I would have done with Professor Clegg exactly what they have done. A chairman of an arbitration tribunal must conduct himself very carefully and properly and stay out of the arguments of either side. Hugh Clegg is a friend of mine. I would have appointed him and used him in many ways. If I may say so, he made a very great mistake in accepting an ex parte invitation to go on that particular Inquiry and, he having done that, I would not have reappointed him when his period of office ran out.
However, having said that much for the comfort of the Government, may I return to what the original Question was about; namely, the Post Office dispute? Here may I say that the Government, or the Post Office (the Government have ways and means of communicating with them, as we all know), are being extraordinarily obdurate. Some form of arbitration—call it what you will—has to be used. Some faces have to be saved. A number of us here have served for a longer or shorter time in diplomacy, and we know how much faces matter. Whether it is a Court of Inquiry or anything else you like to call it, it is needed. When I heard the noble Lord say that his right honourable friend had met with Mr. Tom Jackson and concluded that the issues were too wide, so that there was no point at this moment in his appointing or inventing a Court of Inquiry, I felt very sad. It is when the two sides—if I may speak as a trade union official—are so far apart that they cannot meet that one needs to invent 723 some place, some bridge, some form, where in fact they jolly well have to get together.
I do not know how much longer we have to endure this dispute. Individuals can surmount it we know. Businesses are finding it quite intolerable and impossible. And it is not merely hurting businesses; it is hurting the nation—I recognise the point of the noble Lord's intervention. I therefore ask your Lordships to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say to his right honourable friend: "Please, let us stop it. It is a very, very costly exercise. It is costing people their jobs; it is costing industry their earnings; it is costing the nation all that makes us go. So, whatever you call it, can we not invent some exercise whereby Mr. Ryland and Mr. Jackson in fact have to get together and sort it out?"
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, until the noble Lord came to his final question I was thinking of suggesting to your Lordships that perhaps we were in danger of getting into a debate on this matter, which would be undesirable. As to his final question, we should all like to see this dispute stopped, but one has to bear in mind that it is not in the power of the Secretary of State for Employment to stop this dispute, for reasons I have already given. The noble Lord referred to a Court of Inquiry, but I must say again that there is little in this kind of situation that a Court of Inquiry could do that arbitration could not do. And in thanking the right honourable gentleman—I am sorry; the noble Lord was so recently in the other place—
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, I prefer that title, as a matter of fact.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for what he said on this matter, which I think must carry weight with your Lordships as a whole, may I just beg the noble Lord and his noble friends not to try to make out that this particular incident of Professor Clegg is in any way casting doubt on arbitration or on the independence of people taking part in inquiries of this kind. Indeed, my Lords, this is exactly the opposite; this is a case of Caesar's wife: independent arbitrators must be absolutely above reproach.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, nobody will believe that.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNI think this is the lesson to be learned, if there is a lesson at all. But I say again that we ought not to make too much of it. Nobody can expect as of right to be reappointed at the end of his period of three years.
§ 4.12 p.m.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, while I much appreciate the suggestion of the noble Lord that not too much should be made of the dismissal of Professor Clegg, I think the noble Lord will be aware that a tremendous lot will be made of this dismissal in the trade unions and other spheres. However, I do not want to discuss that. I want to refer more to the question of the Post Office. I am astonished that the noble Lord will not accept the difference between arbitration and a Court of Inquiry. Many unions in their conciliation machinery reject completely any question of arbitration, but within their conciliation machinery they make provision for various types of Courts of Inquiry, and invariably a decision so reached is accepted. It would be difficult for the noble Lord, or anyone else, to give any alarming figures where trade unions have not accepted the decision of a Court of Inquiry. At the same time those unions reject completely the question of arbitration, because arbitration ties their hands.
Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will approach his right honourable friend with a view to bringing pressure to bear again upon the Post Office, which I understand is now a separate undertaking, to accept the suggestion of the trade unions that a Court of Inquiry should be held. What is there to be lost by so doing—or did I detect in the noble Lord's words that in the light of the findings of the recent Court of Inquiry it is questioned whether it is wise to do so? I thought the noble Lord used some alarming words. Surely, if we want to settle this type of dispute it is necessary to go into the fullest possible details, clear the air and get back again to the good associations that have always prevailed previously in the Post Office. They have never before had a strike in the Post Office, and it shows how keenly these men feel about the 725 situation. Surely the Government should give a lead in accepting the suggestion of an inquiry as distinct from sitting on the fence and saying, "Arbitration".
LORD HENLEYMy Lords, may I ask the direction of the Deputy Leader of the House? Because I think this proceeding is getting totally out of hand.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, may I ask whether the House has resolved under the appropriate Standing Order that there should be a debate on this question?
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was going to get to my feet as soon as my noble friend had answered the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. May I suggest to your Lordships that we are indeed getting into a "mini-debate". After all, we are involved in a Private Notice question and I did not detect a great deal of questioning in some of the speeches that have been made from the other side of the House. I hope your Lordships will agree that we have had already a "mini-debate" on this subject and we should hastily proceed with our Business.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I want to ask a question. I agree that the question of Order was quite appropriate, if I may say so without condescension, because it seemed to me that a debate had emerged and that it was inappropriate in the circumstances. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he would not agree with me that one advantage of the Wilberforce Inquiry was that it established the facts, all of which were not available to the general public or even to the Government itself, and would not an inquiry into the Post Office dispute establish facts that are still not available? Are not the two issues just this? One is that the administrators of the Post Office declare that they cannot afford to pay more without increasing charges. On the other hand, the case of the Union is that the wages of the Post Office workers, generally speaking, are far too low, although of course there are variations. 726 Could not those facts be established at a Court of Inquiry, and would not that be of advantage to the general public, and possibly produce a solution to this problem?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, may I reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell? He has put the question very clearly indeed on the matter of establishing the facts. All I said was that it might not be wise to have another Inquiry so soon after the previous one until both sides had satisfied themselves that they were complying with the general principles laid down—not the specific matters of fact but the general principles which the Wilberforce Inquiry had established. That is what I was saying. I accept, of course, the difference between an arbitration and an inquiry, but the point is that we have just had a Court of Inquiry which in many respects is relevant to this issue, and secondly, there is in the agreement a provision for arbitration which my right honourable friend and the Post Office still think ought to be carried out.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I rise merely to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that we have perhaps moved into a "mini-debate". However, this is an important subject; it is difficult to deal with it in a strict question and answer form and in the light of the events of the week-end I think we shall have to consider whether we should not come back to it in order to be able to conform to the Rules of the House.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, arising out of the last reply made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may I ask him one question? He said that it was too soon to have another Court of Inquiry owing to the recent Report of the Wilberforce Committee, but I am tempted to ask him whether Her Majesty's Government do not realise that there is a desperate need for hurry in this matter and a sense of the greatest urgency, in view of the infinite damage it is doing to the country as a whole.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I said it was too soon simply for the reason that I stated: that the fundamental principles have been established in the Wilberforce Report, and I suggested to your Lordships that they should be followed out now.
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, I understand—
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNI understand—
§ LORD ABERDAREMay I please interrupt?
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNI was up first.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I really think we have gone too far now. I hope that he can put his question at a later date, if his noble Leader is going to have a debate on this subject.
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, I understand the problems that all Deputy Leaders have—I had them myself for a long time. I was only going to say that I do not quite share the reluctance to have a debate, although I do think it should be in an orderly way. It was one of your Lordships who actually produced the one positive contribution in the Post Office dispute, which was the idea of a mediator. Would the Government please reconsider the advice they gave to the acting Chairman of the Post Office in order to use that particular form which Mr. Jackson and the Post Office workers were willing to accept?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, it was the Post Office that declined to accept the idea of appointing a mediator because they felt that the difference between the two sides, and the postures that the two sides had taken up, were not amenable to mediation.