§ Mr. T. KENNEDY (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the negotiations between the parties to the marine wireless dispute have completely broken down; whether this is due solely to the employers adamantly insisting upon the reduction in wages as a preliminary to a resumption of work; whether this leaves the position precisely as it was on 26th November last; and whether, in view of the fact that both parties have signified their agreement to submitting the case to a court of inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act, and that the position at sea is full of anxiety due to a violation of the law, he will establish a court of inquiry without further delay?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)I regret to say that the negotiations for a settlement of this dispute have not so far succeeded in ending the dispute. There have been considerable developments since 26th November. For instance, both sides have agreed to discuss a complete revision of wages and conditions, and have accepted the principle of settlement by arbitration in the absence of agreement. The points at issue have been narrowed down to two. The union were willing to accept the reduction of wages as from the date of the resumption of work, but were 1547 not willing that it should date back to 1st December, as asked by the employers. The other point is the re-instatement of men on strike. The association asked for the immediate re-engagement of all the men on strike. The employers state that this is impossible; they offered re-engagement as positions on ships become available, priority being given to the most necessitous cases, with an undertaking that there should be no victimisation on either side.
The employers on 13th February gave a month's notice to terminate the agreement between them and the association, and propose after seven days to offer employment on new terms to individual operators. If their proposed terms of settlement are accepted within seven days, the notice will be withdrawn.
With regard to a court of inquiry, I would remind the hon. Member that the main function of a court of inquiry is to report upon the causes and circumstances of a dispute, and that it is not empowered to lay down terms of settlement. I have refused hitherto to appoint a court, because the questions at issue were capable of settlement by negotiation and could not be settled without negotiation.
The association at the moment have before them the letter which the employers handed to them on Saturday. In my view it is still practicable and possible for a settlement to be reached by negotiation, and, having regard to the extent to which the issues have been narrowed as a result of last week's negotiations, I am asking both parties to meet again without delay.
§ Mr. ALBERYTo whom do the savings in salaries that have accrued from the strike go?
§ Mr. KENNEDYIn view of the unsatisfactory answer which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Minister of Labour to appoint a court of inquiry in connection with the marine wireless dispute, negotiations between the parties having now broken down, and the position at sea becoming of greater gravity daily owing to the suspension of the Marine Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1919.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not a Motion that I can put to the House. If the hon. Member looks at the Act dealing with courts of inquiry, he will see that it is entirely a matter for the Minister's discretion as to whether or not in any case he sets up such a court of inquiry. If I were to grant the Adjournment, it would lead to a precedent which, I am afraid, would mean that every industrial dispute would be brought in that way on the Floor of the House at stages varying according to the views of Members of the House. That would be a prospect which I could not countenance, and I must give a ruling on this occasion which would cover other questions which would undoubtedly arise.
§ Mr. KENNEDYIs there not in this case a special feature involving a serious public interest, and might I ask, in view of that, whether the court of inquiry is not the only possible means of ending a dispute in which, apparently, neither the Board of Trade nor the Ministry of Labour is prepared to intervene? In addition, there is the issue raised in the question of the violation of an Act of Parliament, and the suspension of statutory provisions which in this case operate directly in the interests of one of the parties to the dispute.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWith regard to the last point, that clearly is out of time. If at all, it ought to have been raised when the Minister took that decision. With regard to the other matter, I cannot possibly discriminate as to the importance or magnitude of one dispute or another. I am quite certain that it would lead the House into a hopeless position were I to countenance as adjournment on an industrial dispute.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs it not a fact that the abrogation of this Section of the Act by a Minister of the Crown tends every day at sea to bring human life as well as property into the possibility of disaster, and in these circumstances is it not, therefore, within the scope of subjects to be debated in this House, irrespective of the time limit, since the question of urgency is always before us when human life is at stake?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo; the urgency applies to the occasion on which the 1549 Minister has taken the decision and the decision becomes known to the House.
§ Mr. MACLEANCan it only be after some disaster has occurred at sea, and a number of lives are lost, that we can have the opportunity of raising and discussing this question?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not follow at all.