HC Deb 18 March 1957 vol 567 cc33-41
Mr. Robens

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the present strike in the shipbuilding industry.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod)

Yes, Sir. Following my statement last Thursday, both the unions and the employers were invited to the Ministry on Friday. The unions were informed of the employers' willingness to go to arbitration and to accept the award provided that the unions would do the same and call off the strike. The unions remained adamant in their attitude against arbitration and insisted on a resumption of negotiations with the employers. The employers were informed of the unions' reply and stated with equal firmness that they could go no further than their agreement to accept arbitration.

As the House knows, the strike began on Saturday and, according to my information, the stoppage of work in the shipyards is complete.

I have told both parties that, with my officers, I remain available at all times to assist them in any way possible to reach a settlement.

The House will also expect me to say something about the threatened stoppage in the engineering industry. Although the two are closely linked, this dispute appears to differ from that in shipbuilding in that I understand that strikes may be directed against parts and not the whole of the industry. As the pattern of this dispute is not clear, I propose to invite the parties to discussions with my Ministry; and in view of the urgency of the situation these talks will start at once.

Mr. Robens

The House will be as disappointed, as I have no doubt is the right hon. Gentleman himself, at the fact that his statement does not show that there is any change for the better in the shipbuilding dispute, but we are glad that, in the engineering dispute, he is meeting both sides of the industry before that dispute actually culminates in a strike.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions about the shipbuilding dispute? Would he not agree that the whole of the voluntary collective bargaining system in this country is based on application, negotiation and then conciliation? Would he not agree that the success of our voluntary machinery, which has been built up over very many years, with the assistance of his own Department, depends entirely upon the willingness and consent of both parties to carry out these steps and to be ready to negotiate on any matter that is raised by either side?

If this is the case, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the strike in the shipbuilding industry, which can do quite incalculable harm to the nation, could be stopped now if the employers would agree to negotiate? In these circumstances, would not the Minister stop being the man who is holding the ring, and go into the ring to advise and use all the influence and authority which he possesses as Minister of Labour to urge the employers to begin negotiations?

Is it not the case that, no matter how long this strike lasts, the end of it will be negotiations round the table? [An HON. MEMBER: "And more arbitration."] Oh, no. Is it not therefore common sense that negotiations, which have not yet been started on this wage application, should begin and thus end the strike?

May I put this last question to the right hon. Gentleman? The employers having agreed to accept the arbitrator's decision, is it not clear that if the arbitrator were to grant an increase they would pay it, and, therefore, the employers' case that they will not pay in advance is now departed from, and there would seem to be, would there not, no reason at all why negotiations on the wage application should not now begin?

Mr. Macleod

I would not dissent from some of the earlier remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made about the steps governing negotiation in this country, but what he is saying, in effect, is that if one party will abandon what to them, rightly or wrongly, is a matter of principle, there could be a settlement. Certainly, there could, and. equally, there could be if the other party would abandon the attitude they have taken up.

There have, in fact, been negotiations over a period of months about this particular claim, but there has not been—and this is surely a different point—an offer. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that in every case where a wage claim is put forward the employers must make an offer, that would seem to make it impossible for any association of employers to reject, however strong their grounds may be, a particular claim if put forward.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not just a question of holding the ring. I want to settle this matter honourably to both sides, and I and my officials in the Department have done and will do everything we possibly can to bring that about.

I am certain that in the end—let us not say for the moment whether there will be negotiations, or whether it will be arbitration; we can leave that open—I am quite sure that in the end there must be talks and, finally, an agreement. I should very much like to see that happening, without subjecting the country to the torture of a long and disastrous strike.

Mr. J. Griffiths

With every desire to help, and no desire to say a word to make the situation worse, may I ask the Minister whether he will bear this point in mind? He knows that in the early part of these negotiations, something happened about the general pattern of negotiations which the trade unions could not accept. Here, if I understand it aright, and this has been publicly stated, the employers said that they would not consider an application even before it was made, and when, eventually, it was made they said that it should go to arbitration. I am sure that the Minister and his Department will realise that if we once set this pattern—that if the trade unions put in an application and the employers say "No, go to arbitration"—and there is no discussion, there will be a breakdown of the normal machinery of negotiation.

May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman, since we all agree that at some stage there must be negotiations, whether he will not seek to bring all his influence to bear for a resumption of negotiations? The unions have said, as I understand, that they will not go to arbitration, because they want negotiations, and the employers have said, "We will not negotiate. We want arbitration." Surely the right thing in this case is for both sides to be brought together, to begin the negotiations soon.

Mr. Macleod

I acknowledge the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed of the whole House, to be helpful, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confusing two claims, in that the one rejected in advance, to which he has made reference, was in engineering and not actually in shipbuilding. Each side has taken up an attitude to which it holds very firmly indeed, but I do not believe that these attitudes are so far apart as they may seem to be. After all, the differences between saying. "We will go to arbitration and we will accept the award", and saying, "We want an offer, whatever it may be", does not seem to me to be one that is unbridgeable. I have seen much more difficult points of view than that brought together, though exactly when a bridge will be thrown across I do not know. All I want to see is that a bridge is thrown across, and as quickly as possible.

Mr. Cooper

Will my right hon. Friend define to the House the powers possessed by Her Majesty's Government to safeguard the country from the effects of this and any other strike that constitutes a real danger to the economy of the country and to the employment of the great majority of our people? Secondly, will he tell the House the extent to which Communist influence is present in this dispute?

Mr. Macleod

My hon. Friend's first question is not one that probably should be addressed to me. I think that normally is would go to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and Home Secretary.

So far as the second part of his question is concerned, I have made it a rule from the beginning of this issue—indeed, from the beginning of my tenure of office at the Ministry—that on the merits of either the employers' or the unions' case I do not make open comment in the House. What I want to do is to bring them to an honourable settlement, and that I will try to do.

Mr. Lee

The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that there is a difference between the two disputes in that the engineering employers rejected out of hand an application even before it reached them. Is he, therefore, saying that he is satisfied that negotiation as such in the engineering industry has not taken place, and that, therefore, that dispute is not at the moment able to be resolved by himself or by arbitration?

Mr. Macleod

No. Not quite that. It is partly because the threatened dispute in the engineering industry does take a different form from the one which is now unfortunately established in shipbuilding, and because that pattern is not clear, that I think it is right to ask the parties to come together in what is the normal to-ing and fro-ing with me and my officials at the Ministry.

In the previous case not only I myself but all those very experienced people who work with me were absolutely convinced—I know that this is right from all the conversations I have since had—that there was no chance of that having any success at all. It seems to me that in the engineering case this is a process I should go through before any talk of arbitration comes up, though, clearly, arbitration is one of the methods by which men can be helped to reach a settlement if they are in dispute.

Mr. Nicholson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that from the point of the ordinary man in the street it is shocking that such a dispute, with such far-reaching consequences, should be on procedural issues rather than on intrinsic issues and merits? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to both sides that the country as a whole thinks it shocking that the mechanics of an industrial dispute should he the cause of a dispute with such far-reaching consequences, involving economic disaster?

Mr. Macleod

I do not under-estimate the possible consequences, but I think that my hon. Friend is over-simplifying the matter if he thinks that the dispute is only on procedural matters.

Mr. Grimond

As the right hon. Gentleman said that the two sides were not very far apart, will he consider a definite invitation to them to meet together under his chairmanship, at his Ministry, to consider the possibility of coming to an agreement on the lines that the unions would consider their demarcation rules against an increase in wages?

Mr. Macleod

I have thought of that possibility. There are people who would very much like to see some of the demarcations and restrictive practices brought into this, but I personally think that that would complicate even more a situation which is already extremely complicated. It is not that I have not thought of that matter. I have, but I see no effective way at the moment, although I have studied this carefully, to bring that in.

Mr. Collick

Is not the fundamental trouble in this case the refusal on the part of the shipbuilding employers seriously to negotiate with the unions on this issue? For a hundred years the trade unions have fought to establish the right of free negotiation. Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it is the job of the Government, irrespective of party, in that set of circumstances, to bring pressure to bear on the employers so that free negotiations can go on to settle this dispute?

Mr. Macleod

I answered that question earlier. It is not that negotiations have not taken place. They have taken place over five months, but an offer was not made.

Mr. Robens

May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which, I hope, he will seriously consider? In his statement he said, "I remain available at all times to assist them in any way to reach a settlement." May I ask him to consider issuing a personal invitation to the leaders of both sides to meet under his chairmanship, at his Ministry, so that he can try to bridge the difference which he himself has suggested is but very small?

Mr. Macleod

I have already considered that. However. I think it fair to say to the House that the fact that no formal discussions are going on at present with the Ministry does not mean that a great amount of work is not being done. A number of informal discussions are taking place. As right hon. and hon. Members who have been at the Ministry will know, such discussions are often more fruitful than the more formal meetings.

Mr. Bevan

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is implicit in any dispute that what is arbitrable is negotiable and that if arbitration becomes the substitute for negotiation we shall have many more disputes ending in strikes? The whole purpose of negotiation and conciliation is to try to reach an accommodation.

If an application is made and it is wholly rejected and then, at the very end of a long series of acrimonious discussions, the employers agree to arbitration, they have themselves committed a sin against the spirit of the relationship between the unions and the employers of Great Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] One is trying to be as objective as possible in this matter.

Those of us who have had experience at the Ministry of Labour know exactly what the situation is. Most enlightened employers prefer to have negotiation, and to have arbitration only at the very end, when there is a difference between the two sides which cannot be bridged.

Mr. Macleod

Yes, that is exactly the position. I will not say that the difference between the two sides cannot be bridged, because, obviously, we shall bridge it at some time and in some way, but there is a gap, which has followed after negotiations, and, at the moment, it has not been bridged. It therefore seems natural to suggest that that dispute should be referred to arbitration. I must repeat that it is not a fact that negotiation has not taken place.

Mr. Collick

Not seriously.

Mr. Macleod

We are coming to a different point. Negotiation has taken place over these five months, but it has not ended in a counter offer. Therefore, the ordinary performance of coming closer together in that matter has failed. That being so, it seemed to me that the right thing to do in the shipbuilding industry was to offer arbitration.

Mr. Bevan

If this becomes the pattern of industrial relations in Britain it is a very gloomy prospect indeed. If the unions put forward a claim and the employers just bluntly say "No" and then months go by and, at the end, after long negotiations, the right hon. Gentleman suggests someone as an arbitrator, and the employers accept the arbitrator, that really will exacerbate every industrial relationship in the country. It means that the negotiations are not serious, because if the employers agree to an arbitrator they do think that there is something to be arbitrated. They cannot, therefore, say, "No" at the very beginning and "No" at the end.

Mr. Macleod

The House must not think that the employers were the least bit eager to accept the suggestion of arbitration. They were not. What they said was that they thought that their case was sound. Therefore, they were prepared to put it to an arbitrator. It was the identical request that I made to the unions.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider seriously the suggestion put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)? He will have seen the report in the Press during the weekend of a speech by Sir Thomas Williamson, Chairman of the T.U.C., who appealed to the employers to indicate at once their readiness to resume negotiations. He said the unions were willing to do so. In those circumstances, I am sure that the Minister would have the unanimous approval of the House and the country if he himself were now to invite the two sides to resume negotiations. Will he seriously consider that, in the interests of both sides?

Mr. Macleod

I have already answered that question. I must choose my own timing, because the only way one can get a settlement is by choosing exactly the right moment, if one can, to make an approach. I exclude no approach which would help me to deal with this difficulty.

Mr. W. Edwards

Would not the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the dispute with the shipbuilding employers has been the action of the Government themselves in encouraging the employers to resist wage increases over the past twelve months or so while the cost of living has been going up?

Mr. Macleod

The hon. Member is wrong. Members of the Government put exactly the same case to both employers and the trade unions. Leaving intact the ordinary, traditional, and I think excellent, methods of free, collective bargaining in this country, we asked that both sides, when they came to these very great decisions, should have in mind the economy of the country and the strain which it has been under. That is a wholly proper thing for the Government to put forward, but it leaves absolutely unimpaired the rights of both sides, in negotiating, to put forward and argue their particular point.