HC Deb 03 July 1893 vol 14 cc667-72
MR. KEIR HARDIE (West Ham, S.)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the evidence given before the Coroner during the inquest on the body of Edward Pluck, who committed suicide in consequence of his having been dismissed from the Government Victualling Yard at Dept-ford, in consequence of his being over 65 years of age, George Alfred Harvey, foreman to Mr. Holloway, a Government contractor, stated that— There is a standing clause in their contract that no one over 65 years of age is to be employed. An assistant civil engineer came round and inspected all the men, and considered the deceased and several others too old, and they had to discharge them. He would have liked to have kept the deceased on for two years longer, but had no alternative; whether he is aware that this is in direct conflict with the statement made by the civil engineer; and whether, in view of this conflict of evidence, he will appoint a small Committee to investigate the matter and report to this House?

THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON, Dundee)

In consequence of this question having appeared on the Paper, the attention of George Harvey has been called to his reported evidence at an inquiry which I instructed the Director of Works to hold, and Harvey made and signed the following statement:— No inspection of the men was ever made by Mr. Loughborough, the assistant civil engineer, as far as I know. I was under a misapprehension when I stated that he came round and inspected all the men. The first man discharged was W. Rant, on Saturday, 6th May; and three more men—Pluck, Brian, and Lacy—were discharged on May 8. When men are no longer required for work, the foreman, Shrubsall, gives me notice. In all cases he gives me notice. He gave me no notice about Rant; the assistant civil engineer gave me notice about Rant. Rant was discharged by Mr. Holloway's orders; not by any orders of the foreman or assistant civil engineer. The assistant civil engineer never told me that Rant was too old. No notice was given to me by the foreman, Shrubsall, or the assistant civil engineer to discharge Pluck, Brian, or Lacy. These men were discharged by me under Mr. Holloway's orders. One day I had some conversation with the assistant civil engineer at Greenwich about the men. I cannot remember the exact date; but between May 1 and 8, we were talking about the men, and Mr. Loughborough said some of them were getting old, and that it was nearly time we replaced them or words to that effect. He did not mention any men's names, and he said nothing about Pluck, Brian, and Lacy. He said nothing about discharging these men or any men. This was the only conversation we had. I told Mr. Holloway what Mr. Loughborough had told me. Mr. Holloway told me to discharge Pluck, Brian, and Lacy on Monday, May 8. I thought there was a standing rule in our contract that no man over 65 years should be employed. I have looked through the contract, and I find there is no such rule. Pluck was very infirm. It would not have been safe to send him up a ladder, or on to a scaffold. I have heard Shrubsall's statement that I said to him on May 11: 'It's my governor's intention to discharge all the men that signed the petition; some of them will be going next Saturday.' I do not remember saying this, but I will not say that I did not say it. None of the men's pay has been reduced. I make out the pay-sheets myself. I cannot give any reason for Rant being discharged on Saturday, May 6. I do not remember saying anything to Shrubsall on May 4 about discharging men. I may have said something. I gave no notice of Kant's discharge. This is a true statement, and any other statement that I made at the inquest was made under a misapprehension. I have read this statement, and sign it as being correct.—(Signed) G. A. HARVEY, June 30, 1893. This disposes of any question as to conflict of testimony.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the letter of Mr. H. L. Holloway, a Government contractor at the Victualling Yard, Dept-ford, and which appeared in The Daily Chronicle of 24th June, in which it is practically admitted that Edward Pluck and others were dismissed because they had forwarded a Petition to the Admiralty; whether this constitutes a direct violation of the pledge given on behalf of the Government by the Admiralty officials, that no workman would suffer as a consequence of making a legitimate complaint; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of the contractor and the officials concerned in the dismissal of these men?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I have seen, and have already referred in the House to, this letter, in which the contractor says that the signing of the Petition was something to do with the discharge of the men by him, but that he was within his rights in retaining or discharging his own workmen as circumstances or necessity might arise. No pledge was given by the Admiralty respecting the contractor's workmen. Certain of our own workmen who appeared before us were assured that they would not suffer for any evidence they might give, and that pledge has been strictly adhered to. The action of the contractor was without the knowledge or sanction of the Admiralty. The officials have had nothing to do with the dismissal, and the contractor having admitted the entire responsibility, I do not see that there is anything further to be inquired into.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

Is not the dismissal of men by the contractor under such circumstances as these a good and sufficient reason why the Government should dismiss the contractor?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I do not know that the term "dismissal" is applicable to the relations between the Admiralty and the contractor; but whe- ther, under the circumstances, this contractor should continue to be employed is another matter.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a man named Lacy, who was one of the men discharged from the Victualling Yard at Deptford for having signed a Petition, and who is now over 65 years of age, and therefore unable to obtain employment under the Government, has been employed for a continuous period of 30 years in Government Yards; and whether the Government will either reinstate him or make him a suitable superannuation allowance?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I am informed that Lacy has been employed by successive contractors in the Deptford Victualling Yard for nine years continuously. He may have been employed, off and on, by contractors on previous occasions at Government Yards; but this cannot be ascertained by the Admiralty. The Admiralty have no power to grant contractors workmen, on discharge, any superannuation allowance or gratuity.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any bonus is paid to the Superintendent of the Government Victualling Yard at Deptford, or to any other of the officials there; and, if so, what are the conditions under which payment is made, and what was the amount paid last year?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

It is not clear what the hon. Member means by the term "bonus," but no payment of any kind is made to the Superintendent or other officials at Deptford Yard beyond those shown in the Navy Estimates, pages 40 and 41.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, and, if so, what, wages are specified to be paid to artisans and labourers in the contract held by Messrs. Holloway from the Government in regard to their work at the Deptford Victualling Yard; and what were the terms of the tender which the Government accepted from Messrs. Holloway?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

; Under the terms of the tender which the Admiralty accepted from Messrs. Holloway, payment is made to them for such of their workmen as may be engaged from time to time on day work at a schedule rate. The rates for mechanics in this Schedule vary from 9½d. to 8¼d. per hour, with an additional l¼d. per hour for superior or picked men. The rates for labourers varies from 6¼d. to 5¼d. per hour. All these rates are subject to a deduction of 3¾d. per cent. The amount of wages to be paid by the contractor to his men are not specified; but, according to a Return in which the men have stated what wages they received in week ending 16th June, the rates vary from £2 to £1 per week of 53½ hours. The men are in the employment of the contractor, and are engaged, discharged, and paid direct by him. The numbers on day work vary according to the nature and amount of work in hand. The question as to what improvement can be made in the arrangements at Deptford and other establishments is now being considered by a Committee.

SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

The hon. Member has given in one case the wages per hour, and in the other the rate per week. How many hours a week do the labourers work?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

53½ hours.

MR. DALING (Deptford)

With regard to the declaration read just now by the hon. Member, was that made by the foreman to the contractor?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

Yes.

MR. DARLING

And has the hon. Member seen the letter written by Mr. Holloway, the contractor, in which he says— My foreman was under the impression that all men in my employ had to be discharged at the age of 65 years; but the mistake arose from the fact that there is a rule that Government employés shall leave at that age, and my foreman was under the impression that my men came under that rule. Is it a fact that the Government employés in this Yard do have to leave at the age of 65?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

The rule at Deptford is the same as in all other Departments of the Government Service, and it is established, I believe, by Act of Parliament; men are required to leave at the age of 60, but for special reasons are allowed to stay on five years longer. The men on discharge receive pensions if on the established list and gratuities if on the hired list.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

I beg to give notice that in consequence of the very unsatisfactory answers of the hon Gentleman I will, at the close of the questions, ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to the mode of carrying on the Government work at Deptford Dockyard, and the system of contracting there pursued.