§ Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ What effect the recent postal strike had on the unemployment statistics for September.
§ The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham)My Lords, the recent postal strike resulted in some temporary over-recording in the September 1988 unemployment figures because of delays in the receipt of information about when people ceased to be unemployed. A reliable estimate of the effect is not yet available but it is unlikely that the fall in the seasonally adjusted total in September would otherwise have been much different from the recent average of 40,000 per month. A more precise assessment will he available in the October figures to be published next week.
§ Baroness StrangeMy Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging reply. Does he not agree that such industrial disruption not only delays the completion of unemployment statistics but also possibly contributes to unemployment itself? Is he aware that in May this year in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser 560 jobs were on offer and 30 people were seeking employment but that last week in the same newspaper 709 jobs were on offer and only 23 people were seeking employment? Does he not consider that to be encouraging?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for finding an ingenious way of drawing attention to the adverse effects of the postal strike. I am also aware that your Lordships' House will have to wait until Thursday next week, when the unemployment figures are due to be released, for confirmation of whether or not that is the trend. However, there appears to be a notable disparity between the number of jobs advertised and those who are looking for work in jobcentres.
§ Baroness Turner of CamdenMy Lords, could not the postal strike—which we are all sorry about—have been avoided had management been advised to adopt a more conciliatory attitude leading up to and during the course of the dispute? Is the noble Lord aware that the union in question is scarcely known for taking a militant stance; likewise its general secretary?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, it is my practice to receive in my box each evening a note which tells me whenever there is a postal strike, for 472 whatever reason. I must confess that there have been few days during the past six months when I have not received such a note.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, does not this example show that such a public service should have a no-strike agreement and also that it is quite wrong for an organisation that does not have a no-strike agreement to have a statutory monopoly?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, once again, I am grateful to a noble friend who has managed to bring two entirely separate matters into the same question. I congratulate him on his ingenuity. Whether or not a no-strike agreement would work is something which we have yet to put to the test. It is a matter of concern to many of us that a statutory monopoly should be in the hands of a body which is prone to industrial disputes. I hope very much that the management and unions will get together, that they will communicate and that we shall see no more such disputes in the future.
§ Lord MellishMy Lords—
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)My Lords, I wonder whether I may help. I do not think that there is any particular hurry as to which noble Lord speaks first. However, if one were to proceed in alphabetical order I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has precedence over the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
§ Lord MellishMy Lords, in spite of that uproar I simply wish to ask the Minister: is it not a weird and wonderful system in which we have to rely on the Post Office for statistics? Has no one heard of the telephone?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, that is one of the vagaries of the system for registering unemployment. There is never any doubt when people unfortunately become unemployed because they go along and register for benefits with the benefit service. When they return to work they normally notify the benefit service by post. What we are absolutely certain about each month is the number of people who draw benefit. What we are not certain about in this particular month is the number of people who had posted their forms off saying that they were, happily, now back at work.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, reference was made to no-strike agreements. Will the noble Lord not agree that the unions at GCHQ offered the Government a no-strike agreement and that the Government totally rejected the offer? Does he agree that such rejection is similar to what has been happening to Lech Walesa and his trade union, which the Prime Minister thinks is a model for us to follow? So what are we to do? Are we to carry out the instructions of the Prime Minister and defy the Government, even if we do not provide the trade unions with what they demand? Or shall we 473 try to find reasonable answers in a civilised manner through discussions as the Post Office union wanted but which were turned down by the management?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I do not believe that the affairs of GCHQ need recounting once again in your Lordships' House, particularly, if I may say so, in connection with a Question dealing with the postal strike. Otherwise, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that I cannot find the slightest similarity between the two cases to which he referred.
§ Lord MolloyAsk the Prime Minister!
§ Baroness Turner of CamdenMy Lords, I should like to return to the answer given to my question. Have the Government not heard of arbitration as a means of settling disputes? If they have, why have they consistently undermined the authority of the Central Arbitration Committee by writing it out of successive pieces of legislation?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, this Government have no intention of undermining the authority of management. They believe that it is for management and the unions to settle their differences and I believe that left alone they will do so.