HC Deb 26 February 1941 vol 369 cc579-85

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Mr. Daggar (Abertillery)

I desire to raise the case of Mr. F. Landon, one of my constituents, who in my opinion has been unjustly, if not shamefully, treated by the Department of which the Minister of Supply is the head. The Minister, I think, is not disposed to divest himself of a measure of responsibility simply because the incident to which I refer occurred before he took office. As he has had an opportunity of dealing with this case, I propose to demonstrate that his defence is extremely weak and his attitude most unreasonable. This man, after being idle for several years, because of the long period of industrial depression from which my constituency has suffered, secured employment on constructional work preparatory to the erection of a Government ordnance factory. He was employed in the felling of trees, carrying trees and also fences. He commenced work on 10th June last year. He had to travel by bus a distance of 15 to 16miles from home, and was then obliged to walk a distance of two miles to and from the place of employment. Having had, it has never been denied, the complete confidence of his employer, a Mr. Morgan, and having given entire satisfaction, after a period of11 days he was dismissed; in other words, without having any opportunity of meeting the charges, or permission to examine the case upon which he, in other words, had been "sacked." While it is true that there were others similarly treated, this is the only case in which I am expected to take an interest. He handed the particulars to me, and I then wrote a letter to the Minister of Supply, who at the present moment is the Home Secretary. I sent a letter on 8th July and received a reply on 2nd August. Among other statements in the letter, I propose to read this one because it is relevant to the point which I am anxious to make. I was told by the Minister: The reason why the employment of these men within this factory was terminated was that, through the proper channels, information had been supplied indicating that there was a measure of risk to the public interest in their continued employment and you will appreciate how desirable it is, at the present time, for caution to be observed by the officials of our factories where there is any doubt as to an employé's credentials. After careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that, with certain exceptions, the men discharged may be offered re-employment, or, where they were employés of contractors at the factory, that the embargo upon the issue of factory passes to them may be removed. An appropriate authority to the Superintendent of the factory is being issued forthwith and will cover the case of Mr. Landon. This man was discharged, notwithstanding the long period of unemployment and the fact that he had to maintain a wife and two children, with a son serving in the Army at the time. He was eventually reinstated at the factory, part of which had been re-erected on 7th October. He was employed at that time under the Superintendent of the ordnance factory. My complaint is that as this man was discharged upon information gathered by the Department's representative, and as he was subsequently reinstated upon much more important work, it is clear that he was wrongfully dismissed, and in my opinion is entitled to some measure of compensation. With the view of achieving this object, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Supply. He had also discussed the matter at an interview that I had with him, and at my request he sent me the following communication: As indicated in Herbert Morrison's letter to you of the 2nd August, precautions necessary in the public interest had to be taken in regard to a number of men who were employed either by the factory or by contractors working at the factory … —all I need do here is to point out that this man was employed by a contractor who was engaged upon the work necessary in order to prepare for the erection of the factoryitself— … amongst whom was Mr. Landon, and the action taken by the factory management was to withhold the issue of a pass for entry into the factory. This action (which was taken on or about 22nd June) was taken, bona fide, on information received and was dictated solely by regard for the public interest; it would not have prevented the employers from having offered Mr. Landon work on other contracts. I understand that the work of this firm of contractors ceased at the factory on the 31st July. After consideration of representations made by you and other Members of Parliament respecting some of the men affected, the Superintendent was vested by Herbert Morrison with authority to release the embargo on the issue of a pass for Mr. Landon and he found employment on the staff of the factory itself in October last. It need only be pointed out as a strange procedure for the Department, who defend this action, to allow this man to be reinstated not on work preparatory to the erection of the factory but on work in the factory itself. I submit that that letter is no defence against a claim for compensation. It is seriously suggested that the firm of Messrs. Morgan was not prevented from employing Landon elsewhere. I want to know what that has to do with the issue. As far as this man is concerned it would have been precisely the same whether Morgan employed him at the place where the factory now stands, or whether he was employed on a site in Cardiff or Newport. In my opinion, the issue is that this man was dismissed, not by the contractors, Messrs. Morgan and Company, but because of the Ministry's intervention. It was the Minister and not the contractor who sacked the man, and it is also the Ministry who reinstated him. In my submission, Mr. Landon, had he been employed in another set of conditions, would have been able and entitled to have sought redress in a court of law for his wrongful dismissal.

It appears that the Minister is being sheltered because a Government Department is involved. Why this thin-drawn distinction between a contractor who is paid by the Government and a factory owned by the Government itself? It is an unreal distinction. Employment by this contractor Morgan is no different from employment by the Department itself, and a more fallacious communication never left the Department. In his letter the right hon. Gentleman states that the contractor finished his work on 31st July. Obviously the implication there is that in any event this man would have terminated his employment. Even if that is accepted, this man was idle for five months—a period for which the Minister is not prepared to give any consideration at all. He was dismissed because of the unreliable information supplied by the Department's representative. Such an implication is very strange, in view of the fact that other men—30 in number—with whom Landon had worked were taken over by those in charge of the factory on 21st July and are still working at this factory.

To talk about public interest and good faith is, in my opinion, entirely beside the point. Landon was dismissed because of information supplied by the representative of the Department. He was reinstated on much more important work, if we agree that to be employed in an ordnance factory is more important from the point of view of public interest than the employment of a man in felling trees or the erection of premises. Proof of the unreliability of the statement is evidenced by the fact that he was ultimately reinstated. That leaves only one conclusion, and that is that he was wrongfully dismissed. In my opinion, he is entitled to a measure of compensation for five months' enforced idleness.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

I hope my hon. Friend will absolve the Minister from any discourtesy in not being here to-day. I have been in communication with my hon. Friend on a number of occasions in the hope of arranging a Debate on this point, and it is unfortunate that the Minister is not able to be hereto-day. I have no quarrel at all with the way in which the facts have been presented, but there are one or two additions which, I think, ought to be made in order that the House should clearly appreciate the situation as we see it. It is not true to say that this man was dismissed by the Minister of Supply or by the ordnance factory, because he was never employed by them. Nor is it quite accurate to say that after a period he was reinstated. He could only be reinstated in work which he had been doing previously. The actual position, as my hon. Friend said, was that this man was employed by a contractor. He entered that employment on 10th June last year. From 20th June the then Minister thought it necessary to give instructions that a pass should be refused to this man and other men to enter the factory. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible for me to go in great detail into the reasons for that decision, and I hope he will carry his mind back to the conditions of that time.

All I can say is that the late Minister and the present Minister satisfied themselves that there was no other decision which they could properly take in the public interest. The work upon which this contractor was engaged came to an end on 31st July. During the period between 21st June and 31st July there was no reason why this man should not have been employed by this contractor or another contractor on other work except on this particular site. My information is that in fact other work was being carried on by this contractor elsewhere. The work, as I say, ended on 21st July, and it was agreed early in August, as a result of various representations, that this refusal of a pass to work in the neighbourhood of the factory could be removed in the case of a considerable number of the men, among whom was Mr. Landon. At that time there was a considerable number of men who were expecting to obtain employment in the factory as it became completed and started normal operations.

As a result of a sense of what was proper, following many representations made by hon. Members, including the hon. Member who has just spoken, a special effort was made to see that this man was given employment as early as possible after the decision that he could be allowed a pass in the neighbourhood of the factory. In the first weeks of August a special representative was sent to the neighbourhood to see whether employment could be found. On 17th August his name was put forward by the local Employment Exchange, and he was interviewed with a view to finding him a job as a timekeeper. That was found not to be satisfactory, and at that time it was not possible to employ him in the factory itself. I may say that 600 or 700 men were at that time waiting, hoping to obtain employment in the factory as it became sufficiently completed to give them permanent employment. My hon. Friend wrote again to the Minister on 11th September, and a fresh effort was made, and finally suitable employment was found on 7th October. After working for two months at the factory he voluntarily took his discharge on 7th December. I think that in all these circumstances the House will feel that the Minister has treated this man with no injustice, but with every consideration.

We still claim that we were justified at the time when it was decided to withhold passes from a number of men. These men were not employed in the factory, but by a contractor. After careful consideration and fresh inquiries, started, I am bound to say, with the help of hon. Members who brought the matter to our attention, it was decided in August to remove this embargo and allow passes to a number of men again. Efforts were made to see if employment could be found for Mr. Landon, and work was found for him in October, but after two months he voluntarily left the factory, and we have no further trace of him. I hope the House will feel that the late Minister and the present Minister did their best to deal with this case. The House knows the difficulty Ministers have in giving precise reasons as to why it was thought necessary in the public interest to make the initial decision to withdraw passes, but the matter has been carefully reconsidered and every effort made to prevent injustice.

The fact that the matter was reconsidered is not a reason for my hon. Friend to say that we are impaled on the horns of a dilemma. He said that if on the one hand we were right in refusing a pass, then on the other hand we were wrong in giving it again. Surely he would have argued much more strongly against us if, in the light of changedconditions—and there were considerable changes, which I cannot go into as to the character of the factory—we had persisted merely for the sake of justifying ourselves in the attitude which we originally took. We considered the case very carefully, we tried to find employment for the man, we did find him employment in October, and after two months' work he left of his own voluntary action. I hope therefore that the House will agree that in the circumstances we have acted with propriety.

Mr. Daggar

What has the fact that he has now left the employment got to do with the kind of employmnet he had when the Government prevented him from working for Mr. Morgan? That is very conveniently overlooked. In addition, it is not right to draw a distinction between his employment by Mr. Morgan and his employment now at the factory, because it was not the contractor who dismissed him; the contractor sacked him because of the intervention of the Department. What I am anxious to know is, if there was something wrong with the man and he had accordingly to be dismissed, what has become right with him to cause him to be reinstated, not on constructional work, not in the employment of Mr. Morgan, but in the Department's own direct employment? I think it is most unfair that a man should be rendered idle upon those grounds for a period of months and that no consideration should then be given to granting that individual a measure of compensation.