HL Deb 11 May 1972 vol 330 cc1152-60

4.15 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He said:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement.

"Last night I brought both the British Railways Board and the three railway unions together under my chairmanship to discuss yet again the remaining issues which divided them, to clarify any uncertainties in their position and to explore whether there was any acceptable way in which a settlement might still be reached.

"The unions made it very clear to me that they were insisting on their joint claim for a £20 minimum basic rate with consequential increases for all other grades and salaried staff from May 1. They were not prepared to accept the Board's offer to pay these rates from June 5 or from any intermediate date. Nor were they able to accept any alternative restructuring of the Board's offer amounting to about 12½ per cent. of the wages and salaries bill. The unions' claim would cost close to 14 per cent.

"In the course of these discussions I made a number of suggestions. One possibility I put forward was to introduce the agreed minimum earnings guarantee of £20.50 a week from May 1 and to implement the new rates as proposed by the Board and accepted by the unions from June 5. Another suggestion I made was that, in addition to the minimum earnings' guarantee, all basic rates at present below £20 a week should be increased to that figure from May 1 until the full rates came into payment on June 5. The unions' position remained that the full amounts must be paid throughout the whole grade structure and to salaried staff from May 1.

"I have discussed the position further with the Board to-day. As a result they have written to the unions expressing their willingness to implement the minimum earnings guarantee as from May 1 as I suggested and formally setting out the resulting offer.

"I hope that the unions will accept it."

LORD DIAMOND

My Lords, I am sure it is your Lordships' wish that I should on your behalf thank the noble Lord for being good enough to repeat that Statement. The first question I want to ask is whether he observed the deafening silence that fell upon your Lordships' House when he read the Statement and made no reference whatever to the ballot position. Will he tell us therefore what the Government's latest thinking is with regard to a ballot? May I ask him also, as there is no reference to it in the Statement, what the Government claim has been the benefit of the cooling-off period which has been obtained, and which has now expired, and what contribution the Government have made throughout that period to a settlement of this dispute?

May I also ask him what contribution the Government think the present offer makes to bridging the gap? Can he tell us, in terms of cash, how much is being offered towards bridging the gap? The unions estimate the gap at £2¾ million: the Government insist that it is greater. Should I be right in thinking that the suggestion which has been put into the mouth of the Chairman of British Rail by the Government amounts to about £50,000? Is that the right figure; and, if so, what sort of contribution towards bridging the gap of 2¾ million—or, alternatively, £4 million—does he consider this to be?

May I also ask how much the statement made yesterday by his right honourable friend, before taking the chair at a meeting of both sides—that the remarks made by trade union leaders are, to quote from yesterday's Hansard of the other place, "characteristic of bullies in all places"— will contribute towards bridging the gap? How much does the noble Lord think that statement will help the situation? Does the Minister consider it helpful, or that it will create a feeling that he is to be relied upon as a thoroughly independent and impartial chairman? Does he really think the unions will accept this offer, as he said at the end of his statement? Does he really think that the unions, having regard to the attitude displayed by the Government and to the Government's lack of contribution to a settlement during the cooling-off period, will accept an offer of £50,000 towards their calculated gap of £2¾ million?

LORD WADE

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. What the general public want to know is whether the go-slow is going to start at midnight to-night. I notice that the Minister of State has discussed the position further with the Board today, and as a result the Board have written to the unions expressing their willingness to implement the proposal discussed earlier. But I should like to ask whether the Government have reached any decision as to what steps will be taken if this proposal is not accepted, and when they will be in a position to inform Parliament of what decision has been reached.

4.23 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me first of all about the ballot. The position at the moment is that a formal offer has been made by the Board to the unions. This offer was made to-day and my right honourable friend has expressed the hope that it will be accepted, and I think it right to say why he thinks it is reasonable to hope that. The Board has advanced nearly seven-eighths of the way towards meeting the difference in the timing of part of the award that existed during the cooling off period. All that is necessary now is for the unions, on their side, to move just a little more than one-eighth, to show what they really mean by "negotiation". If this is done and if this offer is accepted to-day then we shall have agreement to-day, in which case we shall no longer be under the threat of industrial action.

On the question of a ballot, I think it is reasonable—although this is a matter on which the Government has not yet formally decided—that the railwaymen should be given a full opportunity of considering what has been offered and whether, with such increases in wages in prospect, they are content to disrupt the system for which they have hitherto worked so loyally. But we hope that this position will not be reached.

The noble Lord asking what had been the benefit of the cooling-off period. The benefit most certainly is that during that period the stress—the duress, if you like—was removed and a breathing space was given for the public and the economy, during which their interests were safeguarded. This gave the opportunity for both parties to consider their positions. The upshot was that one of the parties moved towards, and a very long way towards, agreement; the other party has not yet done so but we still hope that it will.

Thirdly, the noble Lord asked about the contribution made to bridging the gap. The contribution is simply this: one of the main points for which the unions had pressed was the £20 minimum wage. The contribution that has been made is to concede that as from May 1. The noble Lord asked me, fourthly, to quantify this. I am sorry that I cannot do that, but the point is that one of the main claims would be conceded. Lastly, he asked whether I think the unions will accept. We must all very much hope that they will.

The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said that everyone was anxious to know whether the go-slow was going to start tonight. If the unions accept the offer then it is reasonable to expect that it will not start to-night. He asked why the Chairman of the Board has written to make this offer. The reason is that the offer was never made formally, as I thought I had made clear in my Statement. These were suggestions made in the course of conciliation by my right honourable friend to the unions—suggestions which the Board are willing to implement. They have now formally expressed their willingness to implement this in the form of an offer to the unions.

LORD WADE

My Lords, may I put a supplementary question? Is the noble Lord aware that, according to an announcement which has been made, a large number of trains for Saturday have already been cancelled—and I believe for to-night also?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I think the cancellation of trains will depend entirely on the decision taken and on the response that is received to the offer.

4.29 p.m.

LORD POPPLEWELL

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whilst we appreciate the efforts that have been made, it is doubtful whether this offer is not too little and too late? May I ask him why the Government have left it until this last hour before making this offer, which is distinctly aimed at separating the three unions involved? Up to now, those three unions have worked in unison and this proposal places them in a very great difficulty, bearing in mind that the unions have been accused of blackmail, of being villains and of holding the nation to ransom because they have been seeking to defend the rights and standards of life of their members. Does the Minister realise how disappointed we are that he is not able to give a more detailed estimate in reply to my noble friend's question? Is the Minister aware that part of the difficulties that have arisen with regard to the costing between £2.4 million and £3.7 million is that so far no account has been given of the redundancies that will take place over the next twelve months? There will be less employment for something like 4,500 to 5,000 railwaymen and that will have an important bearing. Is it not a fact that the Government ought to be more forthright and not take a partisan position in the way that they have been doing, particularly in recent months?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I do not think, with respect, that the Government can be described as having taken a partisan position. The duty of the Government is to defend the interests of the public and the economy. My right honourable friend has played his part in trying to seek agreement through conciliation. Where the noble Lord seems to misunderstand the situation is when he refers to the Government having left it to the last moment to make an offer. It is not the Government who have made an offer; the Board have made the offer. In this case it is an offer corresponding to suggestions that were made by my right honourable friend. It is not right to talk about an offer designed to separate three unions. That is not the point at all. The noble Lord himself has pointed out to me on a previous occasion that among the train drivers there are both members of ASLEF and the N.U.R. As to the costing estimate, these are matters for the Board and the unions. There seems to be a difference of opinion in regard to the redundancies, but the Chairman of the Board has said emphatically that in making his calculations he has taken into account the redundancies.

LORD DIAMOND

My Lords, I am sorry to delay your Lordships but I must press the Government a good deal further on two points. First, there was the statement that one side had moved seven-eighths of the way and the other side had not moved at all. That is a statement to encourage your Lordships to believe that reason lies on one side only. According to the Statement that the noble Lord has read out, an offer has been made of 12½ per cent. That is what the Government would like the unions to accept, plus a little additional amount. The 12½ per cent. is the figure to which the noble Lord says the employers have moved. That 12½ per cent. is the figure fixed by an independent arbitrator. A judgment as to whether somebody is being reasonable or not does not depend on the extent to which he moves; it depends on the position that he took up at the start. The railway unions believe that the position that they took up at the start was reasonable and that the position that the employers took up at the start was wholly unreasonable, as has been demonstrated by the arbitrator's award.

Secondly, I must ask the noble Lord whether he knows what the figure is which has been the subject of this last offer and which is the total substance of this Statement. Does he know and refuse to tell your Lordships or does he simply not know? If he does not know, why does he come here to make the Statement without being able to inform your Lordships of the most elementary and important piece of information in the whole matter? Does it not almost amount to deceiving public opinion to put forward a claim by the Government that what the employees want most is being offered, when in fact all that is being offered, according to my information and my arithmetic, is a paltry, negligible, almost insulting sum in relation to the difference at issue?

4.35 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the Record to-morrow I am sure that he will see that I specifically said that the movement of seven-eighths was a movement since the cooling-off period. My reason for saying that is that Mr. Jarratt proposed that the increase giving a minimum of £20 a week, with the differentials calculated throughout the range, should come into effect for the vast proportion on January 1 next. That is about eight months away. The difference from May 1 and January 1 is eight months. The Board has come as far as June 5 for its implementation. Against that the unions are still sticking by May 1. That is just about seven-eighths and one-eighth. This is what I mean and I think the meaning is quite clear. With a difference of this minimum size it would be an extraordinary situation if the nation were to be plunged into a go-slow and all the consequences that follow from it.

The noble Lord asks me whether I know the financial position and whether I can give it. In the particular of exactly what the difference between May 1 and June 5 is, I regret to tell him that I cannot quantify it; I do not know. It does not seem to me that the amount here is the matter at stake. What is at stake is whether after a long period of so-called negotiation one side should have made concessions seven times and the other a concession, as I understand it, from a minimum of £20.05 to a minimum of £20.

LORD HANKEY

My Lords, are the Government aware that the travelling public are getting increasingly fed-up with this situation, as is industry, in view of the pigheaded attitudes that have been adopted in these negotiations? If matters go on like this, traffic will increasingly take to the roads, both in passengers and goods, and that can only be deleterious to the railways and railwaymen.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the point that a go-slow is almost bound to damage the interests of the railwaymen themselves.

LORD CITRINE

My Lords, most of us who know the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and who have listened during our period in the House to his fair, courteous and objective replies to questions sympathise with him very much in the dilemma in which he finds himself today. Is it not true that, almost from the beginning of the presentation of the claim, the Railways Board have stated that they cannot meet the claim because they have not got the money? Yet we are told that they have advanced seven-eighths of that claim during the course of the negotiations. We also know that the railways have been in deficit for some considerable time. How then, and from what source, are the Board to pay the seven-eighths of the claim which in the beginning they said they could not meet?

Anybody with any sense knows it will come in the form of a loan of some kind from the Government. Where else can it come from? From passenger traffic? We have been told that passenger traffic would be extremely difficult to attract. And as for goods traffic, the state of trade generally in the country is such that there is not very much hope from that source. In other words, what I am trying to say is this. Let us face the facts. Do not let us dodge about with suggestions that the Minister in the course of meeting with the parties suggests a solution to this problem and then the following day the Railways Board, who up to that point had been adamant, accept the solution. We are not children. Some of us have long experience in industrial negotiations. We know quite well what the point is. The Government are fighting this claim. I know from my membership of the nationalised Electricity Council the power of Ministers to bring influence on chairmen of nationalised industries.

Furthermore, is it not true that the Government stated months and months ago that, so far as economic stability went, they would use their influence with the nationalised industries? Have they not held up those industries from making advances in their prices? Is that not true? Therefore, when we are discussing here relations between trade unions and the Railways Board, everybody knows the negotiations in substance are between the railway unions and the Government. There is too much of a political flavour in this matter to suit me and, I am sure, many trade unionists, irrespective of what the Government may do through the National Industrial Relations Court, and they will take good care that they are not going to be bullied. If there are bullies, they can be on both sides.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, although I do not think it quite agrees with what his noble friend on the Front Bench was saying. Everybody knows that the nationalised industries have agreed to conform with the C.B.I. initiative on increases in prices. Everybody knows that there must be a commercial limit to the extent that the railways can increase their prices without losing substantial revenue. This is a matter of commercial judgment for the railways, and it is in this way that the negotiations have been conducted.