§ 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. fain Macleod)Following the meeting with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the informal talks with the President of the Shipbuilding Employers Federation, to which I referred yesterday, I met representatives of the Employers' Federation last night and they are to discuss the situation with their Executive later today and with their Board tomorrow morning, after which I will see them again.
389 I am meeting representatives of the engineering employers later this afternoon.
As regards the interesting suggestion which was made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and which is similar to one that I and my officials already had in mind, I am able to say that the shipbuilding employers are willing to give it their careful consideration. Although I have not so far been able to obtain the full official view of the unions, I am given to understand that they are not likely to favour the suggestion.
§ Mr. RobensWhile the right hon. Gentleman and I probably have a rather different approach to the ideas that we have in suggesting solutions to the problem, will he accept my assurance that all hon. Members on this side of the House are as deeply anxious as he and his hon. Friends are to see the end of this dispute, and that anything that we say is intended as a real contribution towards securing peace?
Is it not now the case that on Saturday we shall be faced with a strike by the engineering workers in a number of very large centres in the country, and did not the Minister indicate that these two disputes were tied together? While there may be some doubt as to the adequacy of negotiations in relation to the shipbuilding industry, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no doubt whatever that there have been no negotiations in respect of the engineering industry and that, in fact, the engineering employers refused to look at the case before the application was made?
Yesterday, it was said that anything which is a matter for arbitration is also a matter for negotiation. Therefore, will he not now again look at the suggestion which has been put to him from this side of the House ever since the dispute started, that he should call under his personal chairmanship the leaders of both sides of the industry? Would it not be useful for him to suggest that they might consider the whole question of wages together with some of the other problems of these industries, such as the question of restrictive practices and the efficiency of the industries in the future? A whole field of useful conversations could take place, and this would end the strike immediately.
390 Although the right hon. Gentleman has said that he must await his own timing, would it not be better now to take this action instead of waiting until tempers are frayed and bitter things are being said, which would mean that his efforts in the future would be much less likely to be effective than action taken now?
§ Mr. MacleodI think that the whole House will welcome—I very much do—what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary questions. To refer to what he has said about the engineering dispute, it is true that the two disputes are entirely linked, and I think it also follows that if we get a solution or indeed, make progress on either front, it will spread to the other. I am seeing the engineering employers this afternoon, bearing that in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the timing of a meeting under my chairmanship. I am, of course, going to take such action, and I rather hope that such a meeting will take place tomorrow. But it cannot be effective until I have the full, considered views of the shipbuilding employers, and that is why their executive is meeting tonight and their full board is meeting tomorrow. I think that in about 24 hours I shall have their considered views. As I said in my original Answer, I will certainly meet them and bring the unions in at once.
On the wider question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, about linking this matter and restrictive practices, which have been a source of trouble to the industry for a long time, that was a point of view put forward, among others, by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I think that the situation is perhaps rather more hopeful than when I gave my answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party a few days ago. I think that there is a general view developing in the country that something along those lines would be an extremely sensible approach, and it is one that I have borne in mind and have, indeed, tried to achieve in the discussions that I have had.
Mr. LeeI should like to follow up my right hon. Friend's point about the need for negotiations. As my right hon. Friend said, minds were made up not to negotiate; in other words, the appeal 391 was refused before it was heard. Did not the employers use the meetings which took place between them and the engineering unions to assert their rights to do precisely what they liked in their own industries? Is it not the case that in pre-war days they never attempted to disguise that as "negotiation"? It was known as "the exercise of managerial functions", and the employers locked us out for 13 weeks on that basis.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the similarity between the attitude of those days and the present attitude is causing many of us to fear that we are getting back to the type of thing to which I have referred. I hope that even at this late hour an appeal from this House that negotiations should proceed, and that both sides should get round the conference table and bargain on this matter, will not fall on deaf ears so far as the employers are concerned.
§ Mr. MacleodSurely the function of the House is not to plead the cause of either the unions or the employers. Surely the function of the House is to try to speak for the millions of people who will be hurt by this strike and who are sick at heart at the folly of it all.
§ Mr. J. HowardMight I be a little more parochial and ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any statement to make about the postponement of the sailing of the "Queen Mary" from Southampton, and whether he will use his good offices to ensure that this valuable service is not interrupted?
§ Mr. MacleodI have, of course, been closely in touch with the developments, but such questions should not be addressed to me.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithWill the Minister bear in mind that, after thirty years' experience, I have never seen the men more determined and more sure that they were right than they are now? Is he aware that yesterday afternoon there took place a conference at which the delegates were more united than ever before? Rather than allow the country to run to ruin, will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative to a greater extent than he has so far done and recommend the employers to make a substantial contribution towards the solution of the problem by giving an advance in wages and then being prepared to consider an agenda to be arranged by the Minister?