§ 4.4 p.m.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, again with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the breakdown of negotiations over local authority manual workers' pay. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said:
"A meeting of the National Joint Council was held yesterday. I regret that no progress was made at this meeting. I shall be seeing the employers' representatives tomorrow and I trust that negotiations will be resumed in a few days."
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, I cannot thank the noble Baroness, who always has the ear of this House on so many matters, for repeating the Statement by her right honourable friend. Many of us have read her right honourable friend's Statement in another place yesterday, but of course the situation has changed quite dramatically in London. I think your Lordships have probably read in the papers that, since yesterday, over 500 ancillary workers have walked out from St. Mary Abbots Hospital, Kensington, St. Stephen's Hospital, Fulham, and Westminster Hospital, and that pickets have turned away supplies of food and oil from Westminster Hospital, as well as denying supplies of sterile dressings. My noble 166 and learned friend Lord Hailsbam has referred to the mounting tide of public anger, and I think that he was totally justified in using those very strong words.
The situation is this. We believe that the criminal law should be invoked here, because it is assumed to be a criminal act in this country for one individual, or a group of individuals, to threaten the life of another individual or group of individuals. If it be a criminal act, I wonder whether the Government would say if the police have acted in this respect and have made arrests appropriately. Secondly, I believe that the denial of supplies has been going on for a number of days, and I repeat once again the question which has been asked by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place: has the Home Secretary sent advice to chief constables all over the country in this very particular regard?
§ Lord ROCHESTERMy Lords, we should like to thank the noble Baroness for having repeated this Statement and we wish to be associated with the general sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, at the start of his response. I have only one distinctive question to ask, and it is this. In the light of the views expressed recently by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Party and by Mr. Edward Heath, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to consult with Opposition Parties, with a view to obtaining the widest possible agreement and, with that agreement, the support that it would bring regarding the immediate action to be taken in relation to disputes in the public services?
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, in so far as the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, are concerned, they go rather wider than the Question that we are dealing with, which relates to the breakdown in the negotiations over local authority manual workers' pay.
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, I must insist that this is a matter of great public concern. But in this very complacent Statement, the Secretary of State says that he trusts that negotiations will be resumed in a few days, as if it is a matter which can be taken in a leisurely fashion.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I was not suggesting that what is happening is not a matter of public concern. What I am saying is that the Question to which I was asked to reply was on the breakdown of the local authority pay talks yesterday. We deplore the actions that are being taken in the other parts of the public services. We have offered a comparability study for local authority manual workers, National Health Service ancillaries, ambulance drivers and so on, by which we hope to remove unfairness in public service as against the private sector. But that study will, of course, take a year to carry out and will not affect this year's pay negotiations, and at the moment it seems that the services involved are concerned not with what they might get as a result of a study taken this year and paid for next year, but with what they are getting now. The Government have laid down that in their opinion, which I think is generally supported by spokesmen from the Opposition side in another place, the country can afford a 5 per cent. target for wage increases. It was the Opposition in the other place who, when they refused sanctions, took away the prop which the Government might have had.
§ Lord DENHAMSanctions against the employers.
§ Baroness STEDMANSanctions against the employers for paying more, which means that the door has been opened for a free-for-all. Therefore, all sections of the community are now after the going rate and, being human beings, one cannot blame them for that. There is an offer on the table, but at the meeting yesterday the employers' side did not make an offer which had been talked about with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We had taken into account the Prime Minister's announcement about a special offer for the low-paid people. They had done the working out on that, and it was agreed that that would amount to an increase of something like 8.8 per cent. The Government had indicated to the employers that they were prepared to accept that kind of an increase in the interests of achieving a settlement, and that it would be supported and underpinned by the rate support grant. That offer was not laid on the table at the meeting yesterday. We understand that the employers' secretary is anxious to have 168 a further meeting in a few days, and we are hoping that that offer will be firmly on the table.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONEMy Lords, there is a point which my noble friend made to the noble Baroness, which really ought to be pressed. I am not talking now about sanctions, which have nothing whatever to do with the public sector. What I am putting to her is this. Is it within her knowledge that, I think Section 9 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 has been retained in force by both the Labour and Conservative Parties when in office, and is now in force, and that it applies to people who endanger human life? Has the attention of the unions been drawn to the possible criminal action which may be brought against their members?
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I cannot answer that question in the affirmative, but I will inquire whether that has been done.
§ Lord ROCHESTERMy Lords, would the noble Baroness give a specific answer to the question which I posed to her just now; namely, whether or not the Government are prepared to consult with Opposition Parties?
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, we are prepared to consult with anyone who will help us to get out of the state that we are in with our pay policy. We have said—and the Opposition have agreed—that 5 per cent. is the proper limit which the country can afford at the moment without going back to the days of rocketing inflation. Any help that we can obtain from any other Party or any organisation to get us back on those kind of lines we shall accept.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, leaving on one side the question of how far feelings were exacerbated yesterday by the refusal of the employers to put forward the Government's proposal, will the Minister note that the Opposition, if I did not mishear what they said, are now suggesting that where, as a result of that, workers withdraw their labour, chief constables should be invited to consider making this a criminal offence? That being so, would the Minister, as a practical person, 169 be kind enough to bear in mind the suggestion that in order to implement the Opposition's proposal—and we know that the Opposition might be in Government very shortly—she should confiscate or requisition all of the major football grounds in order to prepare them for the reception of the prisoners? Will the Minister also be good enough to inform the House whether, if workers refuse to carry out the renovations necessary to receive the prisoners, they will be prosecuted as well and, if so, where they will be put?
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, my noble friend has asked a series of hypothetical questions at this stage to which I should not like to give an answer.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, on a more serious note, would the noble Baroness take it that there is great anxiety about the point raised by my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench regarding the principle of conspiracy? Will the noble Baroness take it that nobody in this House would dream of asking her to respond to a legal question put by a legal luminary, but will she also take it that there is a great feeling in this House that there is an air about the Statement which I can only describe as complacent? It is not the Minister's Statement, of course, since it comes from the other place. However, will the Minister take it that this House would appreciate it if she would convey to her right honourable friends the gravity with which this aspect of conspiracy is regarded in all parts of the House?
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I have already said that I shall convey these views to my right honourable friend in the other place, and I do not usually make promises from the Dispatch Box which I do not carry out.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, may I say a word? I tried to raise this matter last week—
§ Several noble Lords: Question!
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, I am going to put a question. Would the noble Baroness try to get it over to her right honourable friend that there is this very grave disquiet? It is not 170 that people doubt that the Government deplore these actions, but in view of what is happening at the Westminister Hospital and elsewhere they feel that to deplore is not enough, and that somehow or another this feeling of indignation—and it is worse than indignation—must be put over to the country. It is not enough to deplore. If I may take up another minute of your Lordships' time, has the Minister heard of the woman patient in Coventry who had to have an operation for cancer of the breast; that the surgeon concerned had to choose whether to operate on her or whether to amputate the leg of another patient whose life was in danger; that he chose to amputate the leg and that the woman patient—with, I think, incredible courage which I could not have shown—said that she thought he had made the right decision, and that that decision had to be taken because of the industrial action which is taking place? I really think that something should be done about it.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, they are certainly not empty words when we say that we deplore what is going on, and I shall certainly see to it that my right honourable friend knows about the feelings of this House and about what has been said here this afternoon. So far as the specific case which my noble friend has raised is concerned, I do not have any knowledge of it. Therefore, without the facts before me I cannot make a proper judgment.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, would the noble Baroness take this opportunity, since pay negotiations have broken down, to tell this House and the country what are the average earnings—not the take-home pay, not the basic pay—of the ancillary workers in the Hospital Service? Secondly, may I ask the noble Baroness to consider whether or not it is illegal, under a recent ruling, to stop urgently needed medical supplies from going into a hospital and, if it is illegal, why no arrests have been made?
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, so far as the last question is concerned, I cannot answer why no arrests have been made, but urgent medical supplies are supposed to have been allowed to get through to hospitals. So far as average earnings are concerned, I do not have the 171 particulars with me. They vary according to the different grades of the employees. I will obtain this information for the noble Lord and let him have it. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question for Written Answer, we can also get the average earnings recorded in Hansard.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, could we not give more publicity to this aspect of the case? The noble Lord the Leader of the House was good enough last week to quote the answers which I wanted in respect of the lorry drivers. Could we not have, as a matter of routine from the Government, an authoritative statement of what is the basic wage, what are the average earnings and what are the bonuses and the fringe benefits in each case?
§ Baroness STEDMANYes, my Lords, I will take care to obtain that information and, with the leave of the House, we might get it printed in Hansard.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, various suggestions have been put forward by both Opposition Parties. Yesterday, Mr. Heath stated that what is required is that Parties should get together to discuss the problem that is facing the country—not the long term problem but the present problem. I ventured to suggest in a speech which I made during the course of our debate only last week, that this is a national problem. We can talk about conspiracy and criminals and we can castigate and lambast each other, but we have to recognise that we are confronted with a national problem. May I therefore ask my noble friend whether or not it would be desirable that she should consult her honourable friend, who might then consult the Prime Minister, who might then consult the Leaders of the Opposition Parties and responsible people in the Opposition and, indeed, anybody who can offer suggestions? They should sit around the table, not a long time off but at once. That meeting, which should include representatives of the TUC and the CBI, should be convened at the earliest possible opportunity and the opportunity taken to face this problem, diagnose the complaint and try to seek a solution.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, my noble friend is quite right. This is a 172 national situation. We want to obtain the maximum possible national agreement and help in trying to get over our difficulties on all fronts concerning pay, not only on the local authority front. It is not for me to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consult somebody, who will then consult somebody else, and so on. However, I will see to it that my noble friend's remarks are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend in the hope that he can act on them from there.
Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, while recognising that the Government are not in a position to give instructions to any of our virtually independent police forces, where chief officers are responsible for the control of those forces, there is none the less adequate machinery for consultation between the different chief officers of police and also adequate machinery whereby Ministers can at least make recommendations to the police in this country, because, at a time like this, slow moving machinery can be disastrous.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I am sure that such machinery as is necessary is being used, in so far as Ministers and the police out in the counties are concerned. I am sure that the police know what their job is and that if they get complaints they will act upon them.
§ Lord HANKEYMy Lords, will the noble Baroness consider that there is very great support in the country for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and is it not really a matter for the Prime Minister and the other heads of Parties more than for departmental Ministers, and, if the noble Baroness agrees, will she very kindly represent this to the highest authorities?
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, as I understand it, my highest authority is the Secretary of State within my Department and I have said that I will bring the views of this House to his notice.
§ Lord SMITHMy Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me, as I feel sure she will, that the plight of patients in hospitals has become most serious and urgent? If she agrees with that, would she not further agree that, although the best way to help patients is the speedy reso- 173 lution of disputes, speed does not always occur? During the resolution of disputes should we not be trying to find some way of doing more to help patients in regard to the results of the disputes, or should we just let patients take their chance? I do not believe that the House finds the present situation acceptable in any way.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, and that is how we should like to see things operate.