HC Deb 14 June 1966 vol 729 cc1242-7
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harota Wilson)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q6.

Before I deal with the safeguarding of supplies and the maintenance of essential services, I would like to bring the House up to date following my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour's Statement yesterday. As the House will know, the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the Trades Union Congress saw my right hon. Friend last evening and he and I will be meeting them this afternoon.

Before the Recess the House approved Regulations made under the Emergency Powers Act following the Declaration of Emergency made by Her Majesty the Queen. The House was told then that we should not hesitate to use any powers necessary to maintain essential supplies and services should the need arise.

In fact, we have not so far had to take action under the Regulations because while serious difficulties have arisen in certain parts of the country, particularly the islands dependent on sea transport, there has so far been little interference with the main flow of essential supplies for this country. We are, however, watching very carefully the question of raw material supplies to Northern Ireland and also the maintenance of essential exports. I will ensure that the House will be kept informed of any action that may be necessary.

Meanwhile, we are keeping a day-to-day watch on the situation in the individual ports, in some of which congestion is now beginning for the first time to become more serious, and as soon as action needs to be taken the House will, of course, be informed.

While the Government will take whatever action is needed, the real solution to these problems and the threat posed to the British economy must be a solution of the dispute. As the Government stated last Thursday, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour repeated in the House yesterday, we believe that the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry provides a fair settlement and an honourable solution to the present dispute in the interests of the seamen, the shipping industry and the nation.

Mr. Grimond

Is the Prime Minister aware that in the islands to which he has referred the difficultie4 are becoming crippling?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

On a point of order. The Question is in my name, Mr. Speaker, and I rose to be called.

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry, but I did not see the hon. Gentleman. I will call him next.

Mr. Grimond

We are now in the position of an inland county blockaded by road and rail. While I appreciate that the solution to all this is a settlement of the strike, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that many of the results to the islands will continue long after the strike is over? Will he see whether there are some measures which can be taken to ameliorate the substantial damage suffered by islands all round the coast even if the strike is settled now?

The Prime Minister

I readily give that assurance. We have been watching the position of certain islands and those represented by the right hon. Gentleman have had some of the greatest difficulties. I also agree that as soon as the strike is settled there will still be a continuing problem. We shall do everything in our power to help.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

May we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that there will be no concession beyond the proposals of the Court of Inquiry, since those in themselves would damage the economy more? Secondly, would the Prime Minister consider, in the long term, in the light of what has happened in recent weeks, whether, to prevent something similar from happening in the future, he will now, as his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has done with the Pearson inquiry, give us an interim report from the Royal Commission on the Trade Unions and Employers' Associations so that we can make sure that some action is taken to improve labour relations generally?

The Prime Minister

The last matter is for the Royal Commission itself, of course. The important thing to realise, and I am sure that the House does, is that one is here dealing with people who have very strong feelings and passions arising, in the example of the seamen, out of 20 or 30 years in which these problems were not adequately dealt with. I do not want to prejudice this, but I am not certain whether legislation would deal with the question which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

As for his first question, I would like not to add to my statement, since my right hon. Friend and I are to meet representatives of the T.U.C. this afternoon, but I repeat, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday, that we regard the terms of the Pearson Report as being the right answer to this problem.

Mr. Hector Hughes

In exercising the powers to which he has referred, will the Prime Minister see that they are not exercised to the prejudice of the seamen and that the seamen are treated as well as all other persons in the community who have had increased incomes?

Sir A. V. Harvey

The right hon. Gentleman referred to imports but did not say anything about exports. Can he say to what extent British exports are getting away?

The Prime Minister

I referred to exports. I said that we were watching very closely.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

Watching!

The Prime Minister

Not only watching essential exports, but giving active help wherever we can where there is danger of their being held up. The problem is the bulky exports. We are considering at the moment possible further action for helping any exports which are held up.

Mr. Orme

Is the Prime Minister saying, in effect, that the Pearson Report should be the basis of a settlement and not the basis of debate? Is he saying that there is no give at all within the terms of the negotiations? If so, he will exacerbate the position even more.

The Prime Minister

I have already said that I do not think that there would be any advantage in my adding to the words which I have used. The position, however, is, as the whole House knows, that throughout the National Union of Seamen has made it plain that it must have its claim 100 per cent. and it has shown no willingness to negotiate on anything less than that. That has been the position.

We believed that the right answer lay in the Report of the Court of Inquiry. That could have been the basis for negotiation in the sense that there were many consequential things which needed to be done in productivity and overtime. Of course there would have been negotiations, but we believe that the broad outline of the Report represented a fair and honourable settlement and was in the interests of the seamen themselves as well as the nation, and that it was a great mistake not to accept it straight away.

Mr. Peyton

The Prime Minister referred to essential exports. Would he say what he meant by that? Are they not all essential?

The Prime Minister

My use of "essential", as I made clear, was in terms of value. Some are very bulky. A great deal of shipping space or air space is used to get two or three motor cars away, and it is this area which gives most anxiety. In the same space one can ship far more valuable exports. Therefore, in terms of the cost effectiveness of the export drive, not all exports are equal.

Mr. Heller

Would not the Prime Minister agree that, while this is a very delicate situation, the essence of the immediate problem is to reach a basis for settlement? Would he not agree that the important thing is to get some concession on the subject of leave and that this is a matter which is greatly concerning the National Union of Seamen? We must face the fact that the last word about concessions has not been said.

The Prime Minister

Without going too far beyond what I have already said, I think that right from the start, when my right hon. Friend and I met the seamen before the strike began, it was absolutely clear that nothing on earth would stop the strike because the seamen had such a long record of grievances. Their argument and slogan was a 40-hour week.

The Court of Inquiry has given them a 40-hour week in a period of 12 months from now, in addition to what they got last year. That seems to us to be reasonable and honourable and should be accepted. Other questions, of course, will be brought up from time to time. There are many other grievances which need to be settled in the course of the next year or so as a result of the further work of the Pearson Inquiry. But I am bound to say that we have so far seen no give, or suggestion of give at all, from the National Union of Seamen other than the basis of 100 per cent. acceptance of its claims.

Mr. Heath

Will the Prime Minister recognise that, so long as there are hints and vague rumours of further concessions beyond the compromise put forward in the Pearson Report, the strike will continue, because those who wish to push further will maintain their influence? Therefore, will he be absolutely clear and firm on the statement that the recommendation of the Pearson Report is a fair settlement and not the basis for further negotiation? Will he also recognise that this in itself can be inflationary and undermine the Government's incomes policy unless the union gives and carries out an undertaking to reduce overtime, which is another recommendation of the Pearson Report?

The Prime Minister

What the right hon. Gentleman wants me to say I have said three times this afternoon. My right hon. Friend said it yesterday and the Government said it in a statement from Downing Street last Thursday. That is our position and I make it quite plain. Of course, it is a fact that the extent to which it can be accommodated without being inflationary depends on the implementation of the overtime recommendations of the Pearson Inquiry.