HL Deb 20 January 1971 vol 314 cc501-6

3.37 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if, with permission, I now read a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:

"I held a long series of meetings yesterday with representatives of the Post Office and of the Union of Post Office Workers, ending with a meeting of both sides under my chairmanship. I very much regret that despite these protracted discussions the dispute remains unresolved. Throughout the talks, the positions of the two sides remained firmly as they had been when negotiations broke down.

"The Union maintained strongly that the only basis for a settlement was a substantial increase in the Post Office's offer and justified their claim in relation to the level of settlements in the last twelve months, and as necessary to maintain the relative position of their members.

"For their part, the Post Office regard their present offer as the limit to which they can go in view not only of their present financial position but also because of the damage to their longer-term commercial viability, in view of the scale and timing of further increases in charges which an improved offer would make necessary, and the effects of such increases on the volume of their business.

"Nevertheless, the Post Office confirmed their willingness to go to arbitration under their agreement with the Union of last August, and be bound by the award. They maintained that this agreement placed an obligation on the Union, if the Post Office so required, as they have done, to join with the Post Office in asking me to refer the dispute to arbitration.

"The Union, however, are not prepared to go to arbitration. Moreover, they take the view that the agreement does not require one party to accept arbitration if the other party requires it, and their representatives explained to me that they would not have signed the agreement had it in their view placed such an obligation on them.

"From my reading of the agreement which I find clear on this point, I agree with the Post Office's view. I must accept, however, as did the Post Office representatives, that the difference arises from a genuine misunderstanding.

"At the end of the talks, Mr. Jackson expressed his thanks for the genuine attempts that had been made during our discussion to try and find a basis for conciliation and asked me to report this to the House. The Post Office representatives associated themselves with this expression of appreciation and I should like to say how grateful I am to both sides.

"I finally made clear that I would hold myself available for further discussions if either side should at any time feel that this would be useful."

My Lords, that is the Statement.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, we are, I am sure, grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. I am sure, too, that the noble Lord will be aware that the action of the Secretary of State for Employment in bringing the two sides together is very much welcomed and appreciated. May I ask the noble Lord, especially in view of the fact that here again, as in the power dispute, we are concerned with a union which is well known for its moderate and constructive attitude engaged in a constitutional dispute and taking constitutional action, whether we may be assured that no other members of Her Majesty's Government will indulge in inflammatory speeches, which could go a long way to nullifying the effect of the intervention of the Secretary of State?

LORD BYERS

My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to commend the action of the Minister in bringing both sides together and would associate ourselves with the obvious sense of regret that it has not been possible to find a basis for conciliation. May I ask the noble Lord: would it not be a good idea for the Government to condemn now the whole principle of pay claims and pay awards which are across the board? Are we not bound to compound inflation, when unions—and responsible unions—can openly say, as I understand is in the statement, that they must have such-and-such a percentage to justify their claim in relation to the level of settlements in the last twelve months and as necessary to maintain the relative position of their members."? This determination to keep up with the Jack Joneses is very understandable but it is simply a beggar-my-neighbour policy, which has no finality to it. May I put this thought to the noble Lord? Would it not be worth while considering as a basis for conciliation, which is expressed in the Statement as being required by both sides, getting the agreement of the two sides to setting up an inquiry to decide what the Post Office can afford, taking into account the national interest, and roughly how this amount should be shared out among the lower-paid workers of the Post Office and in other categories which are obviously deserving of wage increases, and getting away from this whole position of across-the-board demands, which are going to ruin the economy?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I first of all express my appreciation of the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, to this Statement. He asked me whether I could give assurances about inflammatory speeches made by other members of the Government. I do not quite know what he is referring to, but I think he would agree that any member of the Government must take responsibility for what he himself says. After all, it is a question of what is an inflammatory speech.

May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that I very much welcome his constructive approach to the matter and I shall bring what he has said to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, it seems only common sense that when we have had a series of wage settlements which obviously, if continued, would bring harm to the economy of the country some way has to be found in which this progress (if it can be called progress) can be slowed down.

LORD BLYTON

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that trade unionists now have not a friend in the world—not the Tory Government, nor the Press nor television? Every trade union member is fighting against past inflation and is trying to keep up with it. Is the noble Lord aware that the Tory strategy now is to let prices go sky-high, when they say that they could settle the score? Is the noble Lord also aware that the Industrial Relations Bill is designed to hamstring the trade unions in the future, when rents and rates, and everything else, go up next year? How can he think that we are prepared to accept Tory nice words on this issue?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am not aware of the premises of the noble Lord and therefore I cannot accept his conclusions.

LORD SLATER

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I support the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith about the Minister getting both sides together; and, secondly, that if it were true that the two sides had agreed basically to go to arbitration the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has slipped up in his responsibility in not getting the two sides together to determine, in the first place, who should be Chairman for that arbitration from the beginning—because in a sense this would be a permanent position? What the Minister has said about the pay increases for those engaged within the Post Office is well out of line because of the extreme overtime that is being worked at this moment inside the Post Office owing to the lack of manpower.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, with regard to the arbitration agreement, this is a matter of interpretation, and it would not be for either my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment to give an official interpretation. What I understand my right honourable friend has said in another place is that, if the two sides will consent., he will lay a copy of the agreement in the Library of another place, and with the same consent I will do the same in your Lordships' Library, so that noble Lords can judge for themselves.

LORD BLYTON

My Lords, can the noble Lord say, in the present conflict taking place between the trade unions and the Government, how we can create one nation?

LORD SLATER

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that over the years since 1964 we have endeavoured to bring back the good relations which have operated inside the Post Office over many years, and that this point of disrepute which has been created over interpretation will create an unfortunate attitude of mind among those who have been good servants to the general public and will create lack of confidence even in the new Board that has been set up in the course of the negotiations?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am sure that we all want to see the best possible relations between the two sides, and I think that most of us, if not all of us, would agree that there should be arbitration, whether or not it is particularly specified in the agreement.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is—that the integrity of the Post Office Workers' Union is not in any way in question. The question really is how to stop the inflationary trend in the country's economy.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am glad to agree entirely with the noble Lord.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, since the noble Lord has referred to arbitration, may I ask: is he really not aware of the atmosphere which has been created in this regard by a number of the pronouncements of his right honourable friends?

LORD DRUMALBYN

No, my Lords; I cannot say that I am aware of it.

LORD SHEPHERD

Scamp.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware of the observations made by the Prime Minister on a previous occasion when a Court of Inquiry was set up by the parties? Is he not aware of other statements which were made during the power workers' dispute by members of the Government, inciting public feeling in a most extraordinary fashion?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I would not accept that. I think we all appreciate that the inherent difficulty here is the means of getting both parties to agree that there is a public interest and also a national interest in the settlement that they make.

LORD BLYTON

My Lords, can the noble Lord—

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think that we are going a little wide on this matter. The usual procedure is that questions are asked to elucidate a Statement, and we are rather getting into a debate. I should have thought that this is dangerous and not conducive to what we all want to see, which is a settlement of this strike.