Shipbuilding and Engineering Industries (Reports) (Hansard, 7 May 1957)

§ 19. Mr. Ellis Smith
asked the Minister of Labour if he has given consideration to the Reports of the Court of Inquiry into the disputes between the Shipbuilding Employers Federation, the Engineering and Allied Employers and the trade unions who have members affiliated to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions; and what action he proposes to take.

20. Mr. Lee
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on his intentions with regard to the suggestion of the Court of Inquiry into the dispute in the shipbuilding and engineering industries to set up an authoritative and impartial body to consider the wider 786 implications of the movement of wages, costs and prices.

§ Mr. Iain Macleod
I welcome the suggestion to which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) refers. Such a proposal involves discussions with both sides of industry, and in the meantime the Government are giving urgent consideration to the form which such a body might take and the scope of its terms of reference. The other recommendations in the Reports are, of course, for the parties to the disputes to consider.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
While accepting the Reports as a basis for reopening negotiations, which we hope will be successful in bringing about an interim settlement, does the Minister consider that the time has arrived when, if they are successful, a long-term agreement should be reached? If so, does he intend using his influence with a view to bringing that about?

§ Mr. Macleod
Of the three recommendations of the Court of Inquiry, the first is on wages, the second on the National Joint Council, and the third on this impartial body. The first two are essentially at the moment for the parties to the dispute, and I will not go into them, unless these negotiations break down; in other words, I hope not to go into them at all. The third does require Government action, and that is why these talks, which at the moment are informal, though they will probably lead to more formal meetings, are going on, and I hope we shall be able to follow this suggestion up.

Mr. Lee
On this point of the impartial body, is the Minister aware that a great deal must now depend upon the interpretation which the Government put upon the meaning of it? For instance, if it were to be merely an inquisition into wages, he could hardly expect full cooperation from the trade unions. If, on the other hand, it is a genuine effort to look at profits and the economic situation as well as wages, many of us would hope to see a really fruitful culmination of these suggestions.

§ Mr. Macleod
Yes; I understand that. It is exactly to those sorts of points that the present conversations are directed.

§ Mr. Grimond
While appreciating that the Minister is engaged in conversations now. would he say a little more of what 787 he really has in mind as to the field which this inquiry might cover? Is it to be a "once and for all" inquiry, for instance, or is it to sit for a certain time and take evidence over a long period? Secondly, unless it is to be the basis of a national wages policy, what exactly will it be able to consider? Are not the causes of strikes usually well-known, or, if they are not, there is machinery for finding them out, and the results of strikes, which are surely equally well-known?

§ Mr. Macleod
I should not like to be too precise at this moment, because these are the matters which are forming the basis of discussion, and I should not like to put a unilateral view about them. On one matter in the hon. Gentleman's question I think I would give a specific answer. It is that I would contemplate that this would be a standing body and not a "once and for all" inquiry.