HL Deb 07 May 1975 vol 360 cc304-7
Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the possibility of industrial disputes arising out of wages claims, they will introduce legislation following the failure of negotiation between the contending parties to make it compulsory to refer a dispute to the Conciliation and Arbitration Board.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, the view of the Government is that industrial disputes are best resolved by voluntary means. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, an independent body set up by the Government with the approval of both sides of industry, is available to help those in dispute to resolve their differences.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, in view of the fact that disputes are not being settled by voluntary means—except in the case of some disputes—and as the Social Contract can hardly be regarded as any more than a partial success, would he not agree that some new device is required in order to avoid so many unofficial disputes?

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, the independent Service was created in September of that year. Therefore, it is a very young infant. Since its inauguration, the number of disputes referred to it for conciliation has doubled as compared with the number when the Service was within a Government Department. The number is now 200. Similarly, the number of arbitration hearings has doubled. It is 25. These are monthly figures. In addition, the Service is giving advice to an average of 500 firms per month on personnel matters. The view of the Government is that, if there were Ministerial or legislative intervention, it would tend to undermine the independence of the Service and would make it more difficult for the Service to win and retain the confidence of both sides of the industry. This is a young infant; please give it a chance.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, may I ask how the independence of this device, which according to my noble friend's answer has been largely successful, could be vitiated by having the force of law? Is the noble Lord aware that in Australia this device has been in operation for many long years, and as a result very few disputes have occurred? The device has been extraordinarily successful. Why not adopt it in this country?

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, we are trying the voluntary method. We are trying an independent service, and we are having some measure of success. Do not let us change every 24 hours. That is about the worst thing we could do.

Lord POPPLEWELL

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any further discussion has taken place with a view to trying to establish national agreements wherever possible instead of so many slop-floor settlements which create unofficial trouble? Would my noble friend make it quite clear that compulsory arbitration would be repugnant to the whole of the trade union movement, and it is much better to follow the line of trying to get this voluntary type of settlement, utilising, I would suggest, all the power of the Government to try to restore national settlements again instead of shop-floor settlements.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, so far as the first question is concerned, I think there is great sympathy for national agreements, by the Government, the Service and, indeed, the trade unions and the employers. But it is not merely politics which is the art of the possible; industrial relations are also the art of the possible. The shop stewards are there and they have the backing, and we must face up to life as it is. So far as the second part of my noble friend's question is concerned, I thank him for putting it.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not asking for compulsion to be adopted in order that the decision in a dispute referred to the Conciliation and Arbitration Board must be accepted by either party but merely for the dispute to be referred to such a body? And when he said, in a somewhat excited fashion—I could not understand why—that we must not change every 24 hours, is he aware that I am not asking him to change every 24 hours, but we should change when it becomes necessary?

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I am fully aware that my noble friend seeks compulsory conciliation and arbitration, but not compulsory acceptance of the decision of the arbitrators. I personally have a great deal of sympathy with his point of view, but I have stated firmly the attitude of the Government That is what he asked for.

Lord BLYTON

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the TUC will not under any consideration accept compulsory arbitration? Their faith in arbitration was shattered years ago when the arbitrators, under the Conservative Government, were told that they could not make any award not within the norm that Government had laid down, regardless of the merits of the case. The new conciliation machinery that has now been set up ought to be given a chance, to see how it works and to try to create in working people some faith in arbitration, which was shattered some years ago by the Opposition.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question.

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his answer to the last question but one means that each individual Minister can have his own views, not only on the Common Market but also on industrial relations?

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, if the noble Lord means that I have to stand here and be a robot, I do not accept it, but I will accept conciliation and arbitration.

Lord ROCHESTER

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches welcome any move, however limited, in the direction of a statutory incomes policy? Would he not agree that, if the findings of conciliators and arbitrators merely amount to splitting the difference between the parties to a wages dispute, they are not necessarily in the interest of the nation as a whole?

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I think there is a great deal of truth in that. We all know from practice that that often happens, but I still have a great deal of faith in conciliation and arbitration.

Lord HAMNETT

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on the last occasion on which compulsory arbitration was imposed, the Statute was subsequently withdrawn in SRO 1305 of 1950, and that the Cabinet of that time viewed the withdrawal by the Minister of Labour with an air of relief? Is it also not true that, frequently in these connections, we remember nothing and forget everything?

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend.