HC Deb 21 March 1957 vol 567 cc550-3
Mr. Robens

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the further developments in the shipbuilding and engineering disputes.

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

Since my statement to the House yesterday, I have seen representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation. They informed me that they are willing to go to arbitration and accept the award if the unions will do the same. The unions, have, however, made it clear that their attitude towards arbitration is unchanged.

I have just come from a meeting with the representatives of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and I am meeting the union representatives later this afternoon. The House will appreciate that, as I am in the middle of these discussions, it would not be appropriate for me to make any further statement.

Mr. Robens

The right hon. Gentleman's statement means, of course, that there is no change since he injected the idea of a single arbitrator into this matter. Is it not the case, since he has now so well stated the employers' view that they are willing to go to arbitration, that the unions are willing to negotiate with the employers and end this strike?

If the Minister wants to see the end of the strike, is it not necessary for him now—and I urge him again, now—to call the leaders of both sides together and to suggest that negotiations should take place? Is it not a fact that the employers also feel that they have some views about the efficiency of the industry and that the union leaders would be quite willing to discuss these matters if the question of negotiations on matters of wages were reopened?

The second aspect of this matter is a by-product of the strike and refers to the sailing of the "Queen Mary" from Southampton. I do not want to make the situation more difficult and, therefore, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in as measured terms as I can, whether he will not use his influence within the Cabinet on the Government not to use Admiralty tugs for the purpose of moving a ship about which there is a dispute, giving the impression that the Government are taking sides in this matter, which would have very serious repercussions upon the whole Port of Southampton and the shipping ports in the country as a whole?

As we are very anxious to get this strike settled and to prevent the engineering strike taking place, has not the right hon. Gentleman a golden opportunity today to arrange for the meetings which have been suggested continuously from this side, under his personal chairmanship, to start negotiations, so that the strike could be ended within a few hours?

Mr. Macleod

As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is true that the unions wish to negotiate direct with the employers. I and my officials are really only a means to that end, and, of course, that would be the end that we wish to see.

The present position is that I am now in the middle of discussions. I must ask to be forgiven for not going into details. I have just seen the employers. The unions are coming to see me at six o'clock tonight. I intend to open with them the field to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as I have made clear on a number of occasions to the House. I do not quite know yet what response I will get.

When I spoke about a meeting under my chairmanship, I said that I rather hoped that such a meeting would take place tomorrow, that is, today, and I still hope that. I hope to have meetings throughout this day. I do not know how long they will go on. The position remains as it was, but when I meet both unions and employers I will try to move in the very fields to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

On the question of the "Queen Mary," I am aware of the position and of the repercussions. As I explained to the House yesterday, and as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, questions about executive decisions on the sailing of the liner are not questions which should be addressed to me.

Mr. Robens

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman will work along the lines of trying to get both sides under his personal chairmanship this evening. It would be as well if, at this stage, we left the situation with the right hon. Gentleman and expressed the hope that his efforts will be successful in solving this great problem, which can only bring great disaster to the country if the strike goes on.

Mr. Grimond

Is there some chance of progress being made on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman indicated, improvement of productivity against increase in wages? Will the Minister be in touch with the individual unions concerned with the demarcation rules?

Mr. Macleod

No, Sir; that is not a matter that would concern the Ministry directly. We have, in another context, moved, through the National Joint Advisory Council, for action in the field of restrictive practices as far as the union side is concerned, and a great deal of progress has been made. Fundamentally, it is not a matter in which the Government can do much more than indicate that they would like to see a move made. The details are bound to be for negotiation between the two sides.

Mr. Lee

While associating myself with what has been said about further negotiations, and not wishing to exacerbate them, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in connection with restrictive practices—a matter which has now been hinted at by the Leader of the Liberal Party—he has notice that today Swan Hunter's have announced a 31 per cent. increase in profits last year? In view of that, is it not necessary to point out that that increase could not have come about if restrictive practices on a very wide scale were being observed?

Mr. Macleod

Figures of the profits, productivity, and so on, of the industry are very well known. It is also known that in the field of productivity losses go much wider than restrictive practices, and there could also be something of an improvement.

Mr. Gibson

May I ask that there will be no provocative action, such as the use of the Admiralty tugs at Southampton?

Mr. Macleod

I could not agree with the word "provocative".