HC Deb 27 March 1957 vol 567 cc1149-52
Mr. Robens

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

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

As I told the House yesterday the employers and the unions are willing to co-operate with the Court of Inquiry which I have decided to appoint to inquire into the shipbuilding dispute. Accordingly, I am concentrating my efforts on finding a basis on which there can be a return to work in both the shipbuilding and engineering disputes.

I have just seen the engineering employers and discussed with them a possible basis on which there might be a resumption of work. They are to consult their management board on this tomorrow morning.

Mr. Robens

There is no lack of good will in this House towards the right hon. Gentleman in his efforts to solve this problem, but is he aware that it has recently been announced on the tape that engineering unions have called out their London area members for this week-end, which will involve about 1½ million people being on strike or being affected by it? Could he, therefore, now tell us a little more about the sticking point in this particular matter? The two disputes are inter-related, but slightly different. Would he say what is the exact position in relation to the shipbuilding dispute and what is the real position now with regard to the engineering dispute?

Mr. Macleod

The proposed spreading of the strike would have most serious consequences not only economically, but also by greatly increasing the bitterness which might come from that action. The two disputes are most closely related. A Court of Inquiry into the shipbuilding dispute has been appointed, in which both sides have agreed to co-operate.

The position in the engineering dispute is that, after discussions with the unions, I have put certain proposals, only a few minutes ago, to the engineering employers. They are the office holders of that body, and they feel that on a matter of such great importance they must report to their management body, which is to meet tomorrow morning. They have undertaken to tell me straight away what the result of that meeting is. In any case, I can give the House the assurance that, whatever happens in those discussions, I and my officers will be tireless in continuing to try to find a solution to this dispute.

Mr. Robens

There is no suggestion, then, at this stage, that to alleviate the apparent deadlock between the engineers and the employers there should be a Court of Inquiry similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the shipbuilding dispute. Is it a fact that the engineering employers offered 5 per cent., with what have been referred to as strings, and that the engineering unions are prepared to take 5 per cent. without strings and call off the strike, and then, presumably, the other matters would be discussed? Is it possible that the Court of Inquiry procedure might be useful in this case?

Mr. Macleod

The position with regard to money is not as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. No discussions about money have taken place between the engineering employers and the unions concerned. I think it likely, and I hope, that there will be a Court of Inquiry into the engineering dispute, also; but there is one stage to take before that, namely, that there might be a meeting of the engineering employers and the engineering unions perhaps on lines similar to that which took place successfully, as far as that stage went, in the shipbuilding dispute, before the actual Court of Inquiry is set up.

The reason I am so anxious to get resumption of work, apart from the consequences to the national economy, is that if one is to have two Courts of Inquiry—both complicated—it is bound, with the best will in the world, to take quite a little time, and it would be a very sad thing if the strike dragged on while those investigations were taking place.

Mr. Robens

Do I understand that the engineering employers have not yet met the engineering unions in like manner to the arrangements made by the right hon. Gentleman for meetings round the table between the shipbuilding employers and the shipbuilding unions? Is that the position?

Mr. Macleod

Yes, Sir. That is the position, and it is on that matter that the engineering employers are consulting their management board tomorrow morning.

Mr. Jack Jones

Is the Minister aware that, arising from instructions given by the National Executive of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, misinterpretations of those instructions are now taking place, and that, arising from such misinterpretations, the Manchester Committee of that particular organisation gave instructions last Friday which meant that on Saturday last the largest steel works in Lancashire was closed down, lock, stock and barrel?

Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that if a ballot of the men concerned in these works were taken not 1 per cent. of them would be in favour of such action having been taken, that the leader of that particular organisation is an avowed Communist and that labour relations second to none in this country have been disturbed in that organisation? Would he take steps to bring this information to the notice of the trade union authorities, so that misinterpretations and distortions shall not in future be allowed to impinge upon an otherwise peaceful industry?

Mr. Macleod

I am aware of what happened in the Manchester area and of the unauthorised attempts to spread the strike there. I have no reason to doubt the truth of any of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. C. Pannell

Is the Minister aware that it would be most unfortunate if, in a dispute of this magnitude, involving so many millions of people, the idea got abroad that this was a Communist conspiracy instead of a frontal battle between two great interests which, up to now, have unfortunately been irreconcilable? Will the right hon. Gentleman draw a sharp distinction between the responsible men who are negotiating with him——

Mr. Jack Jones

Hear, hear.

Mr. Pannell

My hon. Friend did not help it with his views.

Will the Minister draw a sharp distinction between the responsible men who are negotiating with him and any misinterpretation which might be put on matters at local level, a misinterpretation which, after all, is deplored by everybody? Is he further aware that some of us who have spent a lifetime in the trade union movement on the engineering side, and who have kept our mouths shut during the interchanges here, out of respect for his difficult position, are not helped by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones)?

Mr. Macleod

It is not for me to intervene in a dispute between hon. Members opposite, but, if I may say so, with respect, I do not think that the two hon. Gentlemen—I am, perhaps, doing a little bit of conciliation here—are as far apart as they think, because the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) was specifically drawing my attention to, and I was specifically agreeing about, one local instance, and one local instance only, which I know perfectly well was widely resented by moderate opinion and was not typical of the approach of most of the leaders in this dispute.

Back to