The Press SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1966. Government And The Seamen

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31071, 28 May 1966, Page 16

The Press SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1966. Government And The Seamen

Spokesmen for both seamen and shipowners in Britain have said that there can be no question of settling the strike by compromise. If neither party will give ground, the Government’s task of producing a formula acceptable to both parties as well as to the country will be difficult indeed. For the stage has been reached when the strike is not so much against the shipowners as against the State itself. The best hope for a return to sane thinking would appear to lie in the undertaking, given earlier to the union by the Minister of Labour, Mr Gunter, and repeated by the Prime Minister. Mr Wilson, that whatever may be the outcome of the wage dispute, there will be a searching inquiry into working conditions in the merchant marine.

It is recognised that in some ships conditions call for investigation; but the probability is that only a small minority of owners would object to an open inquiry. In any case, it would be surprising if the Merchant Shipping Act, written in 1894. could not be considerably improved by being brought up to date. Obviously, if the requirements of the Act were found to need substantial revision, the seamen would benefit: and the Government might consider it necessary, in the national interest, to relieve the owners of part at least of the burden of added cost. If the urgent problem of securing a settlement were viewed in that light, it should be possible to get the parties back to the conference table in a more tractable mood. If the Government is to convince the electorate that it intends to make its prices and incomes policy work, it cannot afford to let the seamen win this round. A concession to the union of a pay rise of 17 per cent, on ton of the 13 per cent rise won last year, would wreck all hopes of stabilising wages; it would be regarded by other groups of workers as a clear-cut demonstration of the effectiveness of direct action. Mr Wilson’s request for emergency powers, which Parliament will grant without delay, should weigh with the union leaders on the side of reason; for it means that the Government knows that the strike, grievous as its consequences may be. will cost the nation less than the abandonment of the stabilisation policy. Mr Wilson is clearly in the mood to demonstrate to the union leaders that not even the threat of economic chaos, as the strike effects become more widely felt, will force the Government to surrender. Nor is it likely that, as earlier threatened by the seamen, the dispute will be widened into a general strike if the Royal Navy and units of other services are called in to clear the docks and ease the strain on transport to permit the smooth distribution of industrial stocks. Even if the seamen’s executive were rash enough, or desperate enough, to attempt an extension of the strike, there are other leaders within the Trades Union Congress—already committed to co-operating in the working of the prices and incomes policy—who must surely repudiate a move which would completely cripple Britain’s economy. Already, the strike less than a fortnight old, some overseas markets may have been permanently lost to British exporters and shippers. The cut-back of industrial activity may not be serious as yet; but it will become so as stocks of imported materials begin to run out. There are also fears that sterling might suffer another setback as a consequence of unnatural strains on sections of the economy. “ The Times ” has suggested, however, that this risk should not be exaggerated. What would be more damaging to the pound, the newspaper thinks, would be a further demonstration (through surrender to the union’s demands) that the mere threat of a major strike might still be enough to produce an inflationary wage settlement.