§ 3.56 p.m.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I now answer the Private Notice Question which the noble and learned Viscount asked at the beginning of business. If I may, I will use the same words as my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour:
It has been decided to refer the claim by the Bakers' Union to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I am seeing—that is, the Minister of Labour is seeing—the President and General Secretary of the Union later to-day.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for answering the Private Notice Question in this House, may I ask him whether it is not the case that there is now what is known as an industrial dispute in this industry? May I also ask him whether this answer does not mean that the whole of the machinery established over many years, traditional machinery, exercised by the Ministry of Labour for the settlement of industrial disputes, is being superseded?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble and learned Viscount is right in one respect, but he will appreciate that when the other machinery was created and used the National Board for Prices and Incomes did not exist. The Government decided to send this particular dispute to the Board for the simple reason that the Board had itself investigated and reported on the bakery industry early this year. It was felt, in the light of the facts and knowledge that would be available to the Board, that a speedy report and decision could be given.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, does this mean, then, that where the Board have made a review of a particular industry and an industrial dispute subsequently arises, this will be a precedent which will be followed, for taking a 1046 matter out of the hands of the Ministry of Labour and putting it in the hands of an outside body?
§ LORD SHEPHERDNo, my Lords, it is not being used as a precedent. But in view of the fact—and I am quite sure the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate this—that many millions of people are going to be put to inconvenience and hardship this weekend, the Government felt (and I am quite sure the House would agree with this) that we should use all the machinery which will produce a speedy end to this inconvenience and hardship.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I want to ask the noble Lord about that, if I may. Does he think that the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board will produce a speedy end, and a more speedy end than the Ministry of Labour could achieve? Does the noble Lord hold out any hope of a quick alleviation of the difficulties of the British public to which he referred?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, we hope that good sense will prevail in this matter, and that the meeting of the Minister of Labour with the President and General Secretary will find a solution. But I think the noble and learned Viscount would be quite wrong to assume that the machinery under the Ministry of Labour, which has been so useful in the past, will in any way be superseded.
LORD ERROL OF HALEMy Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, would the noble Lord tell me how, in view of the union leader's having already said that he did not wish this matter to go to the Prices and Incomes Board, the investigation by the Board can produce a conciliatory result? After all, it is the duty of the Board—is it not?—to pontificate, not to consolidate.
§ LORD SHEPHERDThe noble Lord will be aware that in many disputes there have been hard views on both sides, and yet, eventually, an independent body has succeeded in bringing the two sides together. The Board is an independent body, and the Government are confident that it will produce the right solution.