MESSRS. BRIGGS (COURT OF INQUIRY) (Hansard, 26 February 1957)

§ The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the dispute at Briggs, Dagenham.
On Friday, 22nd February, my officers met representatives of the Ford Motor Company and of the trade unions, but after discussions lasting some nine hours no settlement was reached.
There were further talks yesterday and on their conclusion I invited both sides to meet me. I informed them of my decision to appoint a Court of Inquiry to examine the causes and circumstances of the dispute. I reminded them of the serious consequences of a stoppage of work at the Briggs plant and urged them to modify the attitudes which they had so far adopted. My officers then had detailed discussions with the parties and an 1046 understanding was reached on a basis for calling off the strike which the President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union agreed to put before his National Executive Council today. I have heard within the last hour that the National Executive Council has accepted the agreed terms and has withdrawn the notice to strike action which was due to take effect tomorrow.
The Court of Inquiry will be held by Lord Cameron, Judge of the Court of Session, Scotland, sitting with assessors, and arrangements have been made for the Court to begin its hearings early next week.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the sense of responsibility which both sides displayed at the meeting at my Ministry yesterday in their efforts to avert a stoppage which would have had the most serious effects upon many thousands of workpeople, on the Company and on the national interest.

§ Mr. Robens
I am sure that the whole House will join with me in saying how glad we are that there has been a settlement of this dispute. We should like to congratulate all the parties and the Ministry of Labour on the fact that this strike has been averted. There are two points on which the right hon. Gentleman might give us some information: first, could he say what the agreed terms are and, secondly, when he speaks of a Chairman sitting with assessors, does he propose to appoint the assessors or will the parties appoint them?

§ Mr. Macleod
The agreed terms should, of course, be read as a whole. They will be given to the Press and I will see that they are circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The assessors will be nominated by the parties and not appointed by me.

§ Mr. Parker
How wide will the scope of the Court of Inquiry be? Will it cover not merely the present dispute, but the disputes which have occurred over the last two or three years?

§ Mr. Macleod
The Court of Inquiry will be appointed to examine the causes and circumstances of the dispute—that is, the dispute which led to the threatened stoppage of work. The hon. Member will be aware that in cases like this, 1047 particularly where assessors sit, it is quite likely that many matters of much wider interest will be brought forward.

Mr. Lee
The right hon. Gentleman will realise that, from the union point of view, agreeing to go to the Court of Inquiry is quite a concession, in that the basis of the dispute, the sacking of the shop steward, has not yet been resolved. Have the employers given any undertaking that if the Court of Inquiry agrees that their action in dismissing this man was wrong, they will accept that and reinstate him in his position?

§ Mr. Macleod
I do not think that we should try to peer ahead into that. Both sides have made substantial concessions to reach the settlement which I have announced and which, I feel, is extremely satisfactory.