HC Deb 10 May 1962 vol 659 cc639-45
Mr. Gunter (by Private Notice)

asked the Minister of Labour if he can make a statement about the dispute in the dock industry.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare)

I am sorry to say that the negotiations at the meeting of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, held on Tuesday, did not result in a settlement that evening of the dispute arising from the trade union side's claim for increased wages and a shorter working week. The following morning—that is yesterday—my officers met representatives of both sides, but it was clear from their respective attitudes that there was, at that stage, no prospect of reaching an agreement.

I am, of course, keeping in the closest touch with the situation and the services of my Department are available at any time to the parties. Further, I shall not hesitate to take the initiative in intervening again if I feel that such action would be helpful and, in any case, I intend to have informal conversations with the leaders of each side later today.

Mr. Gunter

As the Minister knows, I would be the last to say anything at the moment which might embarrass him, but surely he is aware that many of us feel that his Department has been most casual in its approach to this very serious situation.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, for the purpose of clarification, how many out of the total labour force in the docks are involved as time workers and are, therefore, concerned with the dispute of 6d. a day?

Secondly, is it true that the only efforts at conciliation by his Department took place yesterday morning, when the employers were met by his officials at 10 a.m., and the trade unions were heard at 11.15 a.m.? It appears that his officials made up their minds that nothing could be done and that, within an hour, the trade union representatives were back outside in the street. Is this what the conciliation machinery of the Ministry of Labour has been reduced to? Was there no effort to bring the two parties together?

Is the Minister not aware that there is a growing impression developing that the employers are adamant about the 6d. because the Government want them to be adamant about it? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a categorical assurance that should the employers want to make an offer the Government will let them do so?

Mr. Hare

I hardly think that some of those supplementary questions will help the present situation.

Mr. C. Pannell

The Minister has not helped it much.

Mr. Hare

I do not accept the implication of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) that my Department has been casual. If there is any criticism it should be of me and not of my Department.

Mr. Pannell

We all know that.

Mr. Hare

I think that the House should be aware of the facts. Negotiations took place at a meeting of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry and did not, in fact, cease till half-past seven on Tuesday evening. Within a quarter of an hour I had asked both sides to meet my officials on Wednesday morning. It was quite clear from what both sides had to say—they saw my officials separately—that their attitudes were absolutely and entirely rigid. It is not a bad thing, when dealing with human beings, to allow people to have a chance of sleeping on the attitudes that they may have.

Mr. C. Pannell

The right hon. Gentleman has been sleeping for weeks.

Mr. Hare

I think it was right that I should allow people to have second thoughts on the attitudes that they had taken up and I proposed, therefore, having given them that chance, to have these talks this afternoon.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the percentage of men on time rates working in the dock industry. The figures are: 30 per cent. in Liverpool, 10 per cent. in London, and 15 per cent. in the South Western ports, but my information is that approximately 50 per cent. of the wage bill of this industry is, in fact, based on time rates. The reason is that overtime—for example, of piece-workers—is based on time rates, and that port ancillary workers, like the tally-clerks and others, are based on time rates.

I thought that the last question of the hon. Member for Southwark was a damaging one, which really tried to imply that the Government bad given instructions to the port employers about what wage offer they should make. The Government's attitude on the wage policy is absolutely clear. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been no contact with either the Government or myself on the offer in this particular wage dispute.

Mr. Gaitskell

Would the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Government will raise no objection whatever if the employers make a further offer in order to bridge the gap between them and the trade unions?

Mr. Hare

I think that it would be utterly wrong for any Minister of Labour to take any side in this issue at the moment.

Mr. K. Lewis

Since this matter is vital for the country and it is important that people should be fully informed on the matter, can my right hon. Friend tell the House exactly what offer has been made to the dockers by the employers?

Mr. Hare

The employers are offering 3 per cent. on the time and piece rate to take effect now and what is broadly equivalent to a further 4½ per cent. to take effect on 1st January, 1963, by means of a reduction from 44 hours to 42. In addition, they offer an increase in the fall-back rate of 8s. 3d. on the existing fall-back rate of £7 8s. 6d. and attendance money of 6d. on 7s.

Mr. Grimond

Can the Minister say when the claim was first lodged, when the Government first took notice and intervened in the dispute, and whether the sole matter now at issue is the 6d. a day for time workers?

Mr. Hare

The issue is on the extra demand on the time rate which the trade union side has asked for. This is a 1½ per cent. increase on the time rate offer which has been made. That is the issue on which the discussions broke down.

Mr. Grimond

When was the claim first lodged and when did the Government first take note of it?

Mr. Hare

The claim was lodged some time ago—some six months—and the negotiating machinery of the industry has been in action and culminated in the agreement of both sides for the meeting last Tuesday.

Mr. N. Pannell

Can the Minister say anything about the position of the National Amalgamated Stevedores' and Dockers' Union—otherwise the "blue" union—in this respect, in view of the dispute between this union and the Transport and General Workers' Union in Liverpool?

Mr. Hare

I think that my hon. Friend knows that the National Amalgamated Stevedores' and Dockers' Union is not a member of the National Joint Council, but it does represent, as I think my hon. Friend said, an important section of the dockers. My officials saw their representatives this morning and I shall be having a talk with them later tomorrow morning.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Minister aware that this is an extremely dangerous situation? We have only two or three days before the strike may begin. Is he aware that the difference betwen the two sides appears to be an extraordinarily narrow one and that it would be the height of folly to allow a strike to take place when the margin of difference between them is as small as this?

Can the right hon. Gentleman make it clear where the responsibility lies here? Is he prepared, I ask him again, to give an assurance that if the employers make a further offer in order to try to bridge this gap and avoid a strike there will be no objection whatever from the Government? If he is not prepared to do that, is he willing to accept the responsibility of the Government for what might follow?

Mr. Hare

Again, with great respect to the Leader of the Opposition, that is a most irresponsible question. It is not the duty of the Minister of Labour to comment on the details of these negotiations. Our hope on both sides of the House is that both sides in this issue will get together and that an honourable and fair solution will be reached.

Mr. Gaitskell

Does the Minister realise that that reply is entirely unconvincing and that what is important here is to pin down where the responsibility lies? We are entitled as the Opposition to ask the Government whether they are or are not intervening in this dispute in the sense of bringing pressure to bear upon the employers not to make a further offer. Will he make it plain whether or not that is so?

Mr. Hare

I have already said that the Government have not brought pressure to bear on the employers. I made that absolutely clear. It was said also, if I may remind the House, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in answer to questions yesterday. That question has been answered. I think that it is not fair to the two sides or to me in my rôle as Minister of Labour that I should have to answer the sort of questions which the Leader of the Opposition has put.

Mr. C. Pannell

Does not the Minister appreciate that it has been the Government's pay pause policy over a period which has coloured the whole of the negotiations in this matter? Is not he aware that the Prime Minister, a few minutes ago, when dealing with medical manpower, suggested that the Government's policy did not apply to the doctors? Are we to understand that the Government draw a line between the noble professions and the filthy trades?

Mr. Hare

The hon. Gentleman, who is very well aware of what goes on in the House, knows perfectly well the general principles of the Government's position in regard to incomes policy. I think that, when delicate negotiations are going on, questions of this sort are not conducive to what I think hon. Members opposite and, I am sure, my right hon. and hon. Friends want, namely, helping to promote a settlement.

Mr. Mellish

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us in the House have constituencies composed almost entirely of workers in the dock industry. I know that you are always very fair in your judgment, Sir, but is it not right that at least some of us should be allowed to express a view or put a question?

Mr. Speaker

I am in the hands of the House. We have had quite a lot of questions on this statement already.

Mr. Mellish

I have not been able to ask one yet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest, but we really cannot debate the matter without a formal Question.

Mr. Mellish

It is only a matter of time, Mr. Speaker, before, perhaps, we have what might be a disaster for the country.

May I put this to the Minister? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this claim was lodged last October and that it was a 7½ per cent. claim based purely on the rise in the cost of living? Does he not know that the unions have almost fallen over backwards to try to reach a compromise with the employers and that, now that they have got down to this situation, it is plain that there is tremendous good will throughout the country towards both the unions and the workers in this matter? They are willing to meet the employers at this very moment. I appeal to the Minister to bring both sides together to get some sense into the matter.

Mr. Hare

I think that the hon. Gentleman could not have listened to my statement. I said that the original claim went in six months ago. I have taken note of what he says. I shall be meeting both sides this very afternoon, and, in the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the country as a whole, I feel that we had better leave things as they are.