§ Mr. Robens(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the further developments in the shipbuilding dispute.
§ The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. lain Macleod)Representatives of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions visited my Ministry this morning primarily for discussion of the dispute in the engineering industry, but it was clear that there is no change in their attitude as regards the shipbuilding strike.
These two disputes are, of course, closely linked together and any developments in one are bound to affect the other. Although informal talks are going on, I have no more information to give to the House at this stage.
§ Mr. RobensWhen the right hon. Gentleman said that there is no change in the unions' attitude towards the strike, does this mean that the Government are still of the same opinion that if the employers are willing to negotiate a wage application the strike will be called off immediately? Further, will he say what approach he has made to the employers since this time yesterday and with what result?
§ Mr. MacleodIt remains true that both sides have not altered their opinion. That is to say, the employers take the view that they should not make an offer but are willing to go to arbitration and accept the award. The view of the unions remains that there should be a cash offer—not defining the percentage—otherwise, in their view, the strike must go on.
The direct talks that I have had with the employers are really covered by the statement I made about informal talks. I have had an opportunity of discussions with the leader of the shipbuilding employers in which I have borne in mind the points of view expressed yesterday and on previous occasions by hon. Members.
§ Mr. RobensMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has met the Chairman of the Employers' Federation since this time yesterday and whether he has further considered the proposal that he 215 might call under his personal chairmanship the leaders of both sides in order to bridge the gap which he himself said yesterday was very narrow?
§ Mr. MacleodI do not think that it would be right to say how many times I have met whom on this particular business.
§ Mr. RobensThe Chairman?
§ Mr. MacleodYes, of course I have, twice since yesterday.
I should not like to go into the details of that, because I talk to a great number of people and it is not possible to do that if one has to reveal every detail of those conversations. I have made an exception to that only in view of the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I have seen the Chairman twice since yesterday and I hope to see him again in an hour or so. So far as the general invitation is concerned, as I told the House yesterday, I think that at the right time that might be helpful, but I think that it is essential that one side or the other, before that would be useful, should be ready to move a very small way. All my activities at present are designed to further that end.
Air Commodore HarveyIn view of the untold damage that this strike will do to the country and to the people living in it, will my right hon. Friend take the initiative and ask both sides to bury their pride and get together and discuss this matter, and also ask certain Members of the Opposition, who have great influence, to stop criticising just the employers alone?
§ Mr. MacleodI want to bring the people together as soon as possible. That is covered by my previous statement.
I think it is right that we as a House should urge both sides to consider whether they cannot make a move in this matter and not concentrate just on one side. I am very grateful for the way in which the Press has taken the lead and initiative in urging this course of action. HON. MEMBERS:" Which papers?"] The Press in general, on both sides.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWill the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a great many people with no specific or expert 216 knowledge of this particular industry but who are anxious only that a settlement honourable to both sides should be achieved as quickly as possible, are, nevertheless, a little puzzled at the difference in the treatment of this dispute and that, for instance, of the doctors? In the case of the doctors, when the matter was referred to a Royal Commission which might be regarded as equivalent to some kind of arbitration, the Prime Minister immediately offered a cash interim payment and it therefore is a little difficult to see why the workmen in this case are so unreasonable when they ask for that kind of thing.
§ Mr. MacleodI am sure that the differences are absolutely clear to the House. As I said in my short first statement on the shipbuilding dispute, in an issue as straightforward as this—no one could call the doctors' issue straightforward—a court of inquiry, or a similar body, would not in this case be appropriate.
§ Mr. BellengerDoes the Minister really think that he is doing all he can to bring both sides together? The impression is growing in the House and further afield that the Government are merely sitting back and letting the employers and the unions fight it out. Is it not within the right hon. Gentleman's power to bring both sides to his Ministry, whatever the outcome might be? Would not that at least provide an opportunity for him to hear both sides of the question and perhaps get some indication which might enable him to get the two sides talking?
§ Mr. MacleodMy Chief Industrial Commissioner and I have been tireless in our activities to reach a settlement. I agree very much with the first of the remarks—if not the others—of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who said that one wants to achieve an honourable settlement.
I could bring the two sides together at the Ministry if they were merely to discuss the weather or something like that, but the position is that the employers are perfectly ready to meet the unions but do not want to discuss a wage claim or 217 make an offer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am not a spokesman for either the unions or the employers. I am explaining to the House what the position is. They have taken their stand, as the House knows, on the question of reference to arbitration. The unions have taken their stand on different grounds. I am trying to bring the two sides together.
Mr. LeeOught it not to be made quite clear that the unions really wish to use the negotiating machinery? These men have spent their lives creating the machinery so that they can negotiate through it. The real issue, as far as they are concerned, is that they know that the negotiating machine has never yet been used. In those conditions, is it right to ask them to go to arbitration?
§ Mr. MacleodFive months' negotiation can hardly be described as not using the negotiating machinery. The whole difficulty has arisen—and hon. Members opposite really must confront this—because the employers have not made an offer, not because there has been no negotiation. That is the difficulty which has arisen and that is why I suggested that the shipbuilding dispute might go to arbitration.
§ Mr. NabarroTo what extent have the dispute and the attitude of the two sides been exacerbated by the activities of Communist shop stewards and members of the Communist Party?
§ Mr. MacleodI cannot evaluate what part the Communist Party has played in 218 this dispute, but I am certain that it rejoices in the result.
§ Mr. BevanWe are very anxious to help in this matter, if we can. The division between the two sides at present appears to be unbridgeable, because, the men say, the employers have not tried to negotiate and have said that they will not make an offer. I throw out this suggestion quite tentatively. Is it possible, not for arbitration to take place, but for a recommendation to be made by a person listening to both sides, the recommendation itself then being the subject of negotiation?
§ Mr. MacleodThat is a very helpful suggestion. It is one which in a slightly different form I have discussed. I should like to consider its implications to see whether it may be a real help.