§ LORD SANDFORDMy 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 why they delayed for nine weeks before ordering an inquiry into the dispute at Standard-Triumph in Liverpool.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH)My Lords, my right 194 honourable friend the First Secretary of State kept in close touch with developments throughout the dispute and was satisfied that an inquiry at an earlier stage would not have helped to resolve the issue.
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, which four or five years ago would almost certainly have been the right reply. But is it not now the case that the Government's prices and incomes policy has provoked resentment and disaffection in industry to a quite unprecedented extent? Is it not the case that the loss and damage due to unofficial strikes is now more than twice as great as it was when the Government came into power? Is the noble Lord therefore quite sure that this policy of delay and delicacy is still the right course?
§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITHMy Lords, I do not accept the implications of the noble Lord's supplementary question. He was, of course, touching upon broad issues which we debated at greater length two or three weeks ago; but I must emphasise that under the law as it stands the appointment of a court of inquiry to examine an industrial dispute, and the timing of such an appointment, is entirely within the discretion of the First Secretary of State. It is clearly a matter for judgment as to when in the development of a dispute a court of inquiry procedure can be fruitfully invoked. As I said, the First Secretary of State was in close touch with the situation throughout this dispute, and the respective attitudes of the two sides made it unlikely that any earlier appointment of a court of inquiry would have led to an earlier settlement of the dispute and a resumption of work.
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, is it not the fact that, quite apart from the effect of the inquiry on the dispute, when a loss of £11 million (which was the extent of the loss in this particular case) is involved the public has a right to know what is going on? Is it not the fact that the First Secretary has powers under this Act to order an inquiry not only after a dispute has begun but even if one is apprehended?
§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITHMy Lords, the noble Lord's Question really dealt with the situation which had 195 developed in this particular industry. The statutory provision upon this point, if I am correct, permits the Secretary of State to inquire into causes and circumstances of a dispute and to refer any matters appearing to the Secretary of State to be connected with or relevant to it to a court of inquiry. I can only reaffirm that the prime purpose of an inquiry of this kind is to conduce to a settlement of the particular dispute that is taking place, and it must be a matter for the judgment of the First Secretary of State whether or not a court of inquiry is likely to conduce to that result and at what particular stage in the dispute it is likely to be most useful.