HC Deb 09 May 1962 vol 659 cc442-6
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod)

As Leader of the House I wish to make a statement on the threatened strike in the docks.

The Government have learned with regret that the negotiations at yesterday's meeting of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry did not result in a settlement of the current dispute and that, as a result, the notice given by the trade union side of the Council of strike action to take effect at midnight on Sunday, 13th May, remains in being. The Government fully recognise that further consideration of the situation by both sides and a possible resumption of discussions between them may yet avert a strike and earnestly hope that such will be the case.

Nevertheless, a national dock strike, of which the country has, fortunately, had no experience since 1926, would be a most serious blow to the economy and would inevitably lead to the interruption of essential supplies and services. The Government have a duty to maintain supplies and services essential to the life of the community by all the means within their power and, in view of the short period now remaining before the time at which the current strike notice expires, certain preliminary arrangements are being put in hand to this end purely as a precautionary measure.

Mr. G. Brown

Is the Leader of the House aware—I phrase this interrogatively—that this is a very serious situation indeed? For thirty-six years there has been no official strike in this industry. May I ask him whether the first part of his statement, which referred to discussions between the two sides—and referred only to that—actually reflects the Government's position?

May I ask what the Government themselves are doing to try to bridge the gap between the two sides, which I understand to be a quite narrow one? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically if there is any suggestion here that the Government are putting pressure on the employers which is preventing the bridging of the gap?

Mr. Macleod

I say straight away that there is no truth at all in the sentence with which the right hon. Member ended his questions to me. Of the seriousness of this issue there is no doubt. That is Why I thought it right to make a statement today.

I am sure that the House will agree on two things. First, we hope that agreement may yet be reached. After all, we have been as near to this situation before and this eventuality has not emerged. Secondly, it is the plain duty of the Government to make whatever preliminary arrangements are necessary to maintain essential supplies to the community. Equally, of that there can be no doubt.

There have been separate discussions this morning and there is no progress to report from those. Clearly, there will be further discussions, but the timing of this is essentially a matter, I think, for the Minister of Labour.

Mr. G. Brown

Neither in his statement nor in his supplementary answer has the Minister dealt with the other point I put to him. His statement says nothing about the Government bringing the two sides together, which is a quite normal proceeding, and then seeing what can be done in joint discussions. Is that to happen and, if so, is it to happen under the Minister of Labour's personal presidency?

Mr. Macleod

It may well be, but it is entirely a matter for the judgment of the Minister of Labour whether the next stage—there are many possibilities—should be a joint meeting, a joint meeting with him, or a further meeting with the Chief Industrial Commissioner. These are essentially matters which we must leave to the Minister in charge, and he is the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Grimond

As a dock strike would be quite disastrous at present, and as this is a matter of great concern to the whole country, can the Leader of the House tell us what is the particular point upon which the current negotiations have broken down?

Mr. Macleod

It is the point at which that so often happens. The employers have made an offer—it is quite true that there is not very much between the two sides—and the trade union side feel that the offer is not up to the requirements they have put to the employers.

Mr. Nabarro

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is this essential and critical difference between 1962 and 1926, that now it is not only a matter of maintaining essential supplies to the community in this country? It is the critical condition of our balance of payments and maintaining essential exports at the same time. Is that being borne in mind among the preliminary arrangements to which my right hon. Friend referred?

Mr. Macleod

Yes. The effect upon our trade, both on the imports coming in and, if measures have to be taken, on exports flowing out, is, of course, very much in our minds, as indicated in part of the statement I have made to the House.

Mr. Mellish

The Minister will be aware that the Government cannot avoid much of the responsibility here in that statements show quite clearly that negotiations have been proceeding based on the argument of the Government, which is about a wage increase of only 2½ per cent. With this as the background, does he not realise that it almost makes a mockery of trade negotiations, which should be free and unfettered? In an industry of this character where wage increases are an all-important matter at differences of opinion between both sides, is not this a matter from which the Government should have kept right out and allowed the negotiations to be free and genuine? It has already been admitted on television by the employers that the workers' case was wholly justified.

Mr. Macleod

The question of negotiation is, of course, between the two sides of the industry, and the Government have kept out of this.

Mr. Mellish

Two-and-a-half per cent.

Mr. Macleod

We have put no pressure either way on employers.

Mr. Gunter

Referring to this morning's series of meetings, as we understand it negotiations in that sense have broken down. Is it true that the conciliation officers of the Minister's Department have stated that there is nothing more that they can do at this stage? Therefore, is there not great importance in the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that immediate steps should be taken to get both parties to the dispute together under the chairmanship of the Minister of Labour? May we have an assurance that the Minister will be acting as Minister of Labour and not as the "guardian of the guiding light"?

Will the Leader of the House amplify what he meant in the last part of his statement by "essential services"? Would it not have been a little better if that part had been left until tomorrow, when I expect we shall have a statement from the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Macleod

It is always difficult to know exactly the right time to make these statements, but, after all, this is Wednesday afternoon and this very serious event may be on us in four or five days' time. I thought it right, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to make the statement this afternoon.

My right hon. Friend will, of course, carry out his traditional functions in this matter, as Minister of Labour. I would not put the same interpretation as the hon. Member put on this morning's meeting, when he talked about breakdown. I think it true to say that as a result of these inquiries by the Chief Industrial Commissioner there is no progress to report. It is then right for the Chief Industrial Commissioner to go back to the Minister of Labour.

Quite clearly, there are to be further discussions, but I thought it right to make the statement. I hoped that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), with his experience of these matters, would be content to leave it to me, and that the timing of these discussions and the form they should take should be essentially a matter for the Minister of Labour.