HC Deb 28 October 1937 vol 328 cc404-14

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Perkins

I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for raising a matter at this late hour, but this is my only opportunity. I want to draw attention to the very grave dissatisfaction which exists among pilots employed by Messrs. Imperial Airways and other air lines operating from this country. I speak on behalf of a new organisation, the British Air Lines Pilots' Association. It is an association which is open to any professional pilot working on the Empire air routes or on British air routes to Europe or anywhere else. The object of the association is, first, to maintain the status of the pilot, and, secondly, to enable the pilots to enjoy the advantages of what is known as collective bargaining. It is an organisation that has just been built up, very similar to the organisations possessed by the legal profession and the medical profession. It is in no way an organisation of extremists. In order to prove that statement I may tell the House who the officers are. The president is Lord Chesham, a vice-president is Lord Amherst, himself a professional pilot, and the other vice-president is myself. We have behind us some 80 per cent, of the pilots employed by the regular British air lines in this country and the Empire. We claim 80 per cent. membership. As far as Imperial Airways are concerned, we claim a 79 per cent. membership.

We have certain specific grievances. I will briefly enumerate them. First, we have been refused the right by Imperial Airways to any form of collective bargaining. Secondly, there have been comparatively recently certain very curious dismissals. I will give two illustrations. When the air liner "City of Khartoum" crashed about two years ago in the Mediterranean, there was an inquiry. The pilot of that ship was a Mr. Wilson. He had been with the company 7½ years. He was one of two people—I believe it is unique—known as a master pilot of both land and sea planes. Mr. Wilson, quite recently, was suddenly dismissed, and no apparent reason was given. He was just dismissed. I suggest, and I have a very strong feeling that it is so, that the reason why he was dismissed was because he opened his mouth too wide when the inquiry on the disaster took place.

I have another illustration. Imperial Airways have recently been running a service to Budapest. At the beginning of September this year the association wrote a letter to Imperial Airways suggesting that this service should be suspended for the winter as they were not properly equipped to run the service. That letter was received, and almost immediately afterwards the service was stopped and, unfortunately, the two men who signed the letter were both dismissed, although one of them, Mr. Rogers, had been with the company since 1920, from the very inception of the company, and the other, Mr. Lane Burslam, was chairman of this organisation. There are these curious dismissals going on, and it appears to some of us that they are very closely akin to victimisation.

A third grievance is that Imperial Airways have done everything in their power to break this association. They have refused to recognise us, refused to discuss these matters with the pilots at all. The fourth grievance is the question of wages. At a time when I believe, although I am not certain, increased directors' fees have been given, at a time when the dividend has been increased from 8 per cent. to 9 per cent., the directors of this company have seen fit to cut pilots' wages.

The fifth grievance is with regard to equipment. In the view of the association and in the view of the majority of the pilots in the association the equipment now provided by Messrs. Imperial Airways is not good enough. The machines, with one or two exceptions, are not equipped with any apparatus to bring on what is known as a blind landing. Very few of them are equipped with any form of de-icing apparatus and very few, if any, are equipped with a spare wireless set. I am told by these experts—and they are experts—that it is quite impossible to run a 100 per cent. service unless your machine is equipped with these three things and it is unfair that pilots should be asked to run a 100 per cent. service and take risks when they have not these simple elementary things. The sixth grievance is in regard to the machines themselves. Certainly the machines on the London-Paris route are obsolete. We also claim that certain other machines running on other routes in Europe are definitely unsuitable for winter service in Europe. I have in my pocket and I am prepared to show it, a statement made by some of the oldest pilots of Imperial Airways, men whose names are household words—I do not want to divulge the names because I feel that if I did these men would be unemployed to-morrow, although I am prepared to do so if I am challenged. These men all agree that something is wrong with the type of machine they have been asked to fly in Europe in the winter. Anyone who flies in Europe, I fly a good deal myself, will bear me out when I say that Imperial Airways service in Europe is the laughing-stock of the world.

Let me sum up by making what may seem an extreme statement, but I believe it to be perfectly true. It is strongly felt by the organisation I represent that two major disasters which have taken place in the last two years could have been averted if the pilots had had some say in the day-to-day management of the company. We have these grievances. We have tried to negotiate with Imperial Airways, and the door is slammed in our face. We now appeal to the Government to call a conference at which this organisation can meet the directors of the company. We do not mind whether it is in public or in private, but we want an opportunity to put the grievances to the directors in order that they may meet us. We do not ask them to do the impossible. We do not want to make trouble, we are not out to agitate, we are anxious to co-operate with the companies concerned in any way, but we cannot meet the board of this company or the accredited representatives of the company around the table. That is the obvious solution, but we have no alternative but to ask for an impartial inquiry into the whole position of the pilots now engaged by Messrs. Imperial Airways, and in fact into the whole organisation of Messrs. Imperial Airways. We have done all we can to keep the matter quiet, to wash our dirty linen in private, but that is no longer possible and we much regret that we have to wash it in public

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Mander

In reply to a question yesterday the Under-Secretary refused to give any information about this matter on the ground that it was within the domestic capacity of Imperial Airways, and we all agree that if it was a matter of business administration we ought not to interefere. But a matter of public policy is involved, a matter of principle, the issue of collective bargaining. It has been fought out many times in the industries of this country, and it has been won every time. The British Broadcasting Corporation have been trying to fight it, but they are in process of giving way. Every employer, whether public or private, who stands against the principle of collective bargaining will be beaten in the long run. I agree that we have a responsibility in this matter, because the Government have two representatives on the Board of Imperial Airways, and I think we are entitled to know from the Government what attitude those representatives are taking up, and whether they have been told by the Government that it is the wish of the Government that they should use all their influence to see that this universally accepted principle is adopted by a concern which is so much under Government control as Imperial Airways. This is a matter where neither the Government nor this House can escape responsibility, and in some way or other, sooner or later, we must press this issue until collective negotiation is accepted by Imperial Airways.

11.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead)

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) has raised an important issue. It is an issue of a type that is becoming increasingly frequent in the modern world, namely, the relationship between the Government and either a statutory body or a commercial enterprise. I welcome the opportunity which has been afforded me to-night of dealing with the matter. It is true that yesterday, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has reminded me, I declined to state the reasons for the dismissal of the 10 pilots. It is not that the Government had no information on the subject or took no interest in the matter; it is a matter of principle, and it raises important questions of what lies within the business competence of the company as a commercial undertaking and what are matters on which this House may justly claim detailed information. If hon. Members will refer to the Hambling Report, which really forms the basis of the relationship between Imperial Airways and the Government, they will find in paragraphs 41 and 44 (d) the following: 41. In the first place, we desire to make it clear that we do not recommend the creation of a corporation or company administered under Government control, but of a commercial organisation run entirely on business lines with a privileged position with regard to air transport subsidies, on terms and conditions to be defined later. 44 (d). The Government should not exercise any direct control over the activities of the company, other than by the appointment of Directors, except for the purpose of such checking as may be necessary to determine the amount of subsidy payable and except for such control as may from time to time be exercised by the Government through the Civil Aviation Department over all civil flying in the country. I think those two paragraphs state the position very clearly. The relationship between the Government and Imperial Airways is a contractual one; that is to say, the company agree to provide certain services. The contractual services to the Government are by no means all the services which they provide; they provide a number of services outside the contractual relationship and the Budapest service is amongst them. They do agree to provide certain services, and in return the Government agree to pay a certain sum of money. Now in the contract between the company and the Government there are two clauses which relate mainly to the matter under discussion to-night. They deal with the questions of employment and remuneration. One is clause 9 of the Empire Air Mail Agreement which specifies that the pilots must be of British stock and deals with certain questions concerning the Royal Air Force Reserve. Though these points have not been raised to-night, I mention them because this clause deals with the question of employment. Then there is Clause 43 of the Empire Air Mail Agreemeent. The numbers of the clauses may differ in the various agreements signed but in substance they are the same and the other one to which I refer is the well known Fair Wages Clause.

That contractual relationship governs the legal position. I am prepared to admit that questions may arise which are either so near the border-line or of such a nature that special cognisance should be taken of them. The complaints to-night are with regard to the dismissal of certain pilots. I do not think that either of the hon. Members who have spoken will contest the right of Imperial Airways as a commercial undertaking to discharge its employes in what may be called the ordinary business procedure.

Mr. Jenkins

Dismiss them without explanation?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead

To pursue the ordinary procedure that any company does with its employés.

Mr. Jenkins

Surely it is not contended that it is the usual practice, in this country for employers to dismiss employés without giving some substantial reason for doing so?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead

I have no particular information to show that reasons have not been assigned to these pilots. All I say is, that I think nobody, certainly neither of the two speakers, has contested the right of Imperial Airways, as a commercial undertaking, to adopt, with regard to the employment or dismissal of their personnel, the same rules and procedure as are adopted by other commercial undertakings with regard to their employés. But the idea has got round that certain pilots have been dismissed by reason of their membership of a certain union or association. That idea implies certainly victimisation on the part of Imperial Airways, and, possibly, a general antipathy and antagonism to the principle of collective negotiation and bargaining. If there is any breach of the Fair Wages Clause the procedure is open and is well-known by which complaints can be made and investigated and I suggest to the hon. Member for Stroud that certain of the complaints which he made appear to fall within the purview of the Fair Wages Clause machinery. He complained about wages. If he does not think or if any of the pilots do not think they are getting proper wages under the Fair Wages Clause agreement, obviously they have a perfect right to make a complaint, and that complaint will be investigated. If they consider that the equipment of the machines is insufficient or dangerous or faulty, then that seems to me clearly to come under "conditions of labour"—a very proper subject for consideration under the Fair Wages Clause machinery.

Mr. Quibell

What about the danger to the public?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead

But I do not think the Fair Wages Clause procedure has ever been held to cover the question of the recognition of any particular union. That is to say, as long as proper wages are being paid and proper conditions of employment are being observed, the question of how those wages are arrived at or how those conditions of employment are fixed, have never been held in the past to come within the purview of the Fair Wages machinery. I do not feel, moreover, apart from the Fair Wages machinery, that it is the proper part of the Government to try to force upon a sound commercial undertaking with which it may be in some way associated recognition of a particular union, and I think perhaps a certain number of hon. Members who made that suggestion, when they reflect what it means, may regret having done so.

When it comes, however, to the question of victimisation, and not to a question of recognition, that is to say, discriminating against certain employés in respect of their membership of unions generally, or any union in particular, then, whether that be held to come within the Fair Wages machinery purview or not, I feel that that is a matter of such importance, and one on which I believe the people of this country feel so deeply, that it is a matter in regard to which I think special cognisance is deserved. The Secretary of State has consulted the Government directors on the Board of Imperial Airways, and very proper reference has been made by speakers to those directors. The Secretary of State, after consulting with those directors, has satisfied himself on two points: firstly, that Imperial Airways are not opposed to the principle of collective negotiation and have taken no decision to that effect; and, secondly, that there has been no question of victimisation, either for membership of unions generally—the fact is that for years past a large number of employés of Imperial Airways have belonged to a variety of unions—or of any particular union. The question of union membership has not been a factor with regard to the recent dismissals.

The hon. Member asked for an impartial inquiry. I am unable to accede to that request, and unless there be considered to be adequate grounds for an impartial inquiry, it is obvious that there might be no limit to the number of inquiries of that nature which might be demanded and conceded, on details of the day-to-day commercial working of Imperial Airways. I have said that the Secretary of State, after making due investigation through the proper channels, has satisfied himself on two material points; but, after all, hon. Members have the right to approach Ministers on any subject that they may wish, and if any hon. Members wish to adopt that course in this case, and care to bring forward specific cases and specific information or evidence, they are, of course, at liberty to do so, and the Secretary of State will give consideration to the cases submitted to him, as any Minister gives consideration to cases submitted to him by hon. Members on any subject.

The hon. Member for Stroud went, however. I think, rather beyond the mere question of the dismissal of pilots or the mere question of the unsatisfactory nature of the equipment or questions affecting the terms of employment of the pilots concerned. He did indicate that there are unsatisfactory features in connection with the general working of Imperial Airways. That, of course, is a very much larger question, and, I think he will agree, a question which could not be directly related to the particular question which was asked yesterday. There you come up against another matter—the adequate or inadequate fulfilment of the contractual relationship between the Government and Imperial Airways; whether in point of fact Imperial Airways are carrying out, by giving an efficient service, the contractual relationship laid down in the various agreements which have been signed. I have already informed the hon. Member that a particular service which he quoted, which had run for the summer months, did not form part of the contractual relationship between the Government and Imperial Airways. So that has nothing to do with the question. It has been taken off as an ordinary piece of commercial prudence. It is possible for a service to pay at certain times of the year and not at other times. The hon. Member raised the question of the Budapest service, and I put this consideration to him, although in point of fact that service does not come within the contractual relationship.

Perhaps it is out of place here, but, having travelled recently 10,000 miles in the latest Imperial Airways flying boats, I should like to pay a tribute to the comfort and efficiency of their services. I have travelled through many climates and over one or two continents, and it is an entirely erroneous impression to allow to get abroad that Imperial Airways is completely inefficient and ineffective, and the laughing-stock of Europe. I do not know whether Europe laughs at Imperial Airways, but I am certain the Empire does not.

Mr. Perkins

Has my hon. and gallant Friend been to Baghdad?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead

I went there, but in a Service aircraft. I was undertaking a tour of the Royal Air Force Stations in the Middle East, and if I had flown everywhere in Imperial Airways craft, the Royal Air Force might have had a justifiable grievance and I expect the hon. Member would have been the first to ask why the Under-Secretary of State travelled about in Imperial Airways craft instead of Service craft? I have tried to put to the House some of the salient features of this matter. I have tried to explain some of the considerations which have to be taken into account in this and cognate subjects, because I started by saying that this is merely an instance in a type of question which has become increasingly common, where there is a considerable measure of resemblance and relationship in different organisations. I have tried to assure the House that the Secretary of State has taken every trouble to satisfy himself with regard to the particular points at issue.

Mr. Jenkins

The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Minister had satisfied himself on particular points, but he did not say that he had satisfied himself that there were substantial reasons for these dismissals.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead

I have said that the Minister satisfied himself on the two points at issue, namely, that there is a disinclination on the part of Imperial Airways to recognise unions and the question of victimisation. The Minister has satisfied himself clearly on these points. No one can deny that they are the material points at issue.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.