§ 17. Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on Government policy in relation to the possibility of courts of inquiry replacing the present system of arbitration tribunals in industrial disputes or, alternatively, of the tribunals publishing the reasons for their recommendations.
§ Mr. Iain MacleodThe purpose of a court of inquiry is to inquire into the causes and circumstances of a dispute and to report thereon to the Minister. A court of inquiry may of course make suggestions to bring the dispute to an end but an inquiry is no substitute for arbitration, the purpose of which is to settle the dispute by making an award. Tribunals are free to give the reasons for their awards but in practice they rarely do so.
§ Captain PilkingtonAs it is important not only that justice should be done but that it should be seen to be done, would not it be better if reasons were given a little more frequently?
§ Mr. MacleodThere are arguments both ways. Tribunals often feel that if they pinpoint certain reasons they might add to or re-open the controversy which led to the arbitration. However, where they wish to pinpoint a special matter—as, for example, the provincial bus disputes, where the tribunal said that the award was deliberately linked to the differential—then I welcome that identification, and I should certainly be very glad if that were done.
Mr. LeeWill the right hon. Gentleman agree, on reflection, that the amount 372 of interference by the Government in our industrial negotiation machinery has already been sufficiently disastrous without the appearance of any crackpot ideas of this sort?
§ Mr. MacleodI do not accept anything of the sort.