HC Deb 05 December 1944 vol 406 cc485-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

5.59 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

I wish to raise a matter about which I gave the Home Secretary notice some time ago. About a year ago, I and other Members of the House of Commons were ap- proached by representatives of the Auxiliary Police, the war-time body of police, recruited to help the ordinary police forces of the country. They complained, first, about their conditions of service, and, secondly, about the inordinate delay——

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Brown

—as they represented, in getting a reply from the Home Office to the claims that they had advanced. In company with other Members I investigated that position; and I found that there was, as it seemed to me, an extraordinary state of affairs. In the first place, there appeared to be no adequate machinery for settling, by conciliation, disputes about the conditions of service of this very large body of men. In the second place, it appeared that where it was impossible to settle such disputes as might arise by conciliation and agreement, there was no provision anywhere for the settlement of such disputes in the normal way, the common way in England, by reference to an arbitration board. On further investigation it appeared that things were equally unsatisfactory in other services controlled by the Home Office, such as the regular police, the National Fire Service, and the Defence Services created during this war generally. In the case of the regular police, it appeared that they were forbidden to be members of a trade union. It seems that in 1919 there was a strike by the police, which resulted in the passage of the Police Act later that year, which laid down that policemen should not be members of a trade union.

In place of a trade union, and the ordinary negotiation machinery which goes with a trade union, there was created what was known as the Police Federation. This Federation appointed representatives to meet the Home Office from time to time, and that was the only kind of conciliation machinery which existed between the regular police and the Home Office. I was told by representatives of the regular police that the Federation met the Home Office about once a year on the average, and that most of the time of the second meeting of the year was occupied in saying "No" to the claims advanced at the first meeting. The police to whom I talked were unanimous in the view that that machine was utterly unsatisfactory. Here, again, with the regular police, there was the same feature, that there was no provision for arbitration. The Home Office was judge and jury and recorder in its own cause, and there was no court of appeal against a decision of the Home Office, except this House of Commons. The same general remarks apply to the National Fire Service. That is a wartime creation, and the members of that Service in fact enjoy the privilege, or the opportunity, of belonging to a National Firemen's Association. But here, again, there is no regular conciliation machinery, and no provision for reference to arbitration where disputes cannot be solved by agreement. So with the other Defence Services—the ambulance service and so on.

It seemed to us who investigated the matter that there were three features common to pretty well all these services which come under the control of the Home Office. The first was the absence of adequate conciliation machinery. The second was inordinate delay in dealing with grievances—and any trade union representative will tell the House that the magnitude of the grievance is in direct proportion to the delay experienced in dealing with it. The third common feature was that there was no right of appeal to arbitration against the decision of the Home Office. Some of the delays appeared to be very serious. For example, I was told that the regular police had asked, as early as July, 1943, for the right of appeal to arbitration. They had received no reply at all by July, 1944—when they sent a reminder—and, in August 1944, they were told that the Home Office were still not in a position to reply to that application. In other words, a period of something like 16 months has elapsed since reasoned representations were submitted on this point, and the regular police of this country are still without a reply to the issue which they raised. There appears to be a similar delay with the auxiliary police, who put in an application for an increase of wages as long ago, I think, as September, 1943, and an application for the right of appeal to arbitration as long ago as January, 1944. But they, too, have still received no reply to their representations in that respect.

As against that picture—a picture of inadequate conciliation machinery, protracted delay, and no right of appeal to arbitration—the regular Civil Service has had properly-constituted Whitley Councils for the last 25 years, and the right of appeal to arbitration in wages disputes and others since 1925. The Prison Officers have had a Whitley Council for some years past, and the right of going to arbitration on wages and other disputes. And the Government, as a whole, has not only cordially recommended employers and employed to settle their disputes by arbitration, but has also, during this war, created a National Wages Tribunal for the purpose.

In the light of what we discovered, hon. Members of this House—and they were Members of all parties in the House, and not merely Members of my own—sent a deputation to the Home Secretary which made a reasoned presentation of the case as we saw it, and pleaded that, as an issue of principle, there ought to be proper conciliation machinery in these Services and a normal right of appeal to arbitration where cases could not be settled by agreement. I have forgotten the precise date of that deputation, but it was some time before the Summer Recess and, if I say it was in the neighbourhood of three or four months ago, I think it will probably be about right.

The Home Secretary met us with his accustomed courtesy, and promised to go into the representations that we submitted, but, although I have written to the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly, on behalf of this all-party group, on a number of occasions since, I have not been able to get any reply to the representations that we then made. What is in the mind of the Home Secretary I do not pretend to know, and the only indication of difficulty that we had when we saw him was his reference to the fact that some of these services, and especially the regular police and auxiliary police, were what he described as "disciplined services," that is to say, services where men were under, not a military discipline, but a quasi-military discipline, where one man says unto another "Go," and he goes, unto another "Come," and he cometh, and, to a third, "Do this," and he doeth it, and that this distinguished these services from others in which conciliation and arbitration machinery existed. It would be unjust to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gave us a final reply on the question, but he hinted at this as a difficulty.

Now the very fact that these are disciplined services is not an argument against the provision of the necessary conciliation and arbitration machinery, but rather an additional argument in support of it. Or, to put it differently, the more disciplined the service is in this respect, that is to say, the more helpless the individual is to enforce his own rights, the more he is precluded from having a trade union of the ordinary type, the more essential it is that he should feel in his own mind that there is other adequate machinery for the settlement of his grievances, and that he is not dealing with a Department which is judge and jury in its own cause. All service is disciplined, from domestic service to divine service. There can be no service that is not disciplined. But the more the discipline is of a military or quasi-military character, the more essential it is that the helpless member of that service should be satisfied that there is adequate machinery for dealing with his grievances.

The last point is that, in the absence of such machinery as I have asked for and am asking for now, the men in the service have only one court of appeal open to them. They are public servants, and their only court of appeal ultimately is to this House of Commons. In the absence of such machinery as I appeal for, they are bound to bring to us their grievances about wages, hours, subsistence allowance, overtime, promotion, and so on. I wish to assert, first, that this House is not a body suitably composed for passing detailed judgment upon an unlimited number of wage claims. We are not so constituted as to be the most desirable body to discharge that function. The second observation is that it is wholly undesirable in the public interest that the conditions of public servants, whether they are in the so-called disciplined services or the wider Civil Service, should be the subject of a "dutch auction" between rival parties in this House. That is quite undesirable. If we are not to have that, then we must provide the necessary machinery for settling these things without reference to the House of Commons

I understand that the Home Secretary has been very busy. He has been courteous enough to drop me a note that be- cause of that he will not be able to be here to-night, and I understand that the Under-Secretary of State is ill, and that, therefore, another hon. Member will be replying for him. I understand that, and I can understand, too, that with the pressure of bombs and doodle-bugs and the rest of it, the Home Secretary's job is not an easy one. But I do not want to take up a great deal of the time of the Home Secretary. He ought to be able to give a decision in principle; he ought to be able to say as a matter of clear principle, "I have decided that there shall be adequate conciliation machinery for the adjustment of these difficulties, and where that conciliation machinery does not produce agreement there ought to be the right of access to an independent arbitration court, which every other Government Department is prepared to accept." Every other Government Department accepts it. The House provides for it in all disputes between members of the public and the Crown. If the Crown takes our land, and we do not like the price, we have the right of appeal to an independent body. If the Minister of Pensions, whom I see sitting on the Front Bench, does not give one of our constituents a square deal, or we think he does not, although he always desires to do so, we have the right of appeal to a tribunal. There should always be a court of appeal from the overwhelming power of the State. It is in pretty well every Act of Parliament we discuss here. It is observed by every Government Department in its relations with its staff. I can see no reason whatever why this particular category of people, to the number, in the aggregate, of some hundreds of thousands, should be excluded from the scope of the operation of that simple principle.

Therefore I ask the Home Secretary to take two decisions: one, that there shall be adequate conciliation machinery; two, that there shall be proper access to arbitration. Having taken those decisions in principle, I ask him to tell his civil servants in the Home Office to work out the necessary details, and when these have been worked out, let them be submitted to the Home Secretary and to the Member for Rugby, and between us we shall reach a definite conclusion.

6.16 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston)

Perhaps I may say, first, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked me to convey his apologies to my hon. Friend and the House that he is unable to be here to-day. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security is laid up in bed and she cannot be here, and my right hon. Friend has asked me to reply for him. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) for his courtesy in saying that this will be agreeable to him; I hope it will be to the House. My hon. Friend has raised several points to Which I will endeavour to make reply but, in order to do so, it is necessary for me to sketch some of the background of the Civil Defence Services. I should not like to let this opportunity pass, when I am at this Box speaking for the Ministry of Home Security, without paying my tribute to the magnificent work which has been carried out by the Civil Defence Services in this war. As the House knows, these services are made up of the wardens, the rescue parties, ambulance, first aid, and the Civil Defence reserve and also, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, the National Fire Service and the police. The set-up, like many of our successful institutions, is somewhat illogical. Leaving aside for a moment the question of the National Fire Service and the police, to which I would like to refer separately, most of these services are local authority services employed by the local authority but paid by the central Government. We have the position, therefore, of these services having one employer and being paid by somebody else, the whole of course, under the general responsibility of the Minister of Home Security.

Now as regards their rates of pay: these have been based broadly on those of the Armed Forces. To go into one small detail, the Civil Defence rate has been made broadly equivalent to that of a married private with one child——

Mr. W. J. Brown

Except that many of these men are much older than a married private with one child and have, in fact, a wife and several children.

Mr. Grimston

Yes, that is why I used specifically the word "broadly."

Mr. Brown

It is very broad.

Mr. Grimston

The reasons for that are that the work of the Civil Defence Services is really governed by enemy action; they are, in fact, fighting troops. I think it would be very inviduous to say to a man, "If you have to deal with a bomb at midnight, you will get a different rate of pay from that which you will get if you have to deal with a bomb in the middle of a day," and the ordinary conditions—wage rates and so on—worked out in accordance with industry did not seem to apply to the Civil Defence Services which, as I say, do their work more or less in accordance with the dictates of the enemy.

My hon. Friend has complained of the conciliation machinery which exists and I should like to describe to the House exactly what it is. There is what is called the Joint Consultative Committee which was originally set up when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the Home Office. That Consultative Committee has been set up and is composed, on the workpeople's side, of the representatives of the various unions of which they are members. These unions are the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives and the National Union of Public Employees; the Fire Brigades Union is also represented on the Committee. On the official side, the Committee consists of officials of the various Departments concerned.

I am given to understand that by and large that Consultative Committee has worked with success. The view my right hon. Friend takes now is that here we have, in the fifth year of the war, an organisation which is at present being unwound—we hope we are approaching the end of the war—and it would, therefore, be a great pity to introduce now a radical change in machinery which has, perhaps with some exceptions, in the main worked well. These services are in the process of dwindling. We cannot say that in peace-time they will be disposed of, but their size and activities will be nothing as compared to what they have been, and it does not seem a good moment now to introduce a radical change in the machinery.

I would like to say a few words about the National Fire Service and the police. In pre-war days the fire service was the responsibility of local authorities, but after the outbreak of war it was nationalised. Its future is now, or will be shortly, under discussion. Obviously, its future in peace-time is a most important matter, and it seems hardly the moment now for a definite decision regarding conciliation machinery to be taken beforehand.

Mr. W. J. Brown

Is it not precisely the moment that it should?

Mr. Grimston

Not before the future of the service is settled.

Mr. Brown

If it be the case that the Home Office are considering the whole future of fire prevention in Britain—because that is what it comes to—surely it is the precise moment when the Home Office ought to decide in principle, whatever the details may be, that one of the characteristics of employment in that service should be that there should be adequate conciliation machinery, and appeal to arbitration where a case cannot be settled.

Mr. Grimston

I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that there must be adequate conciliation machinery, but if discussions are going on as to a future set-up it is a pity to make up one's mind on one item of that set-up before having completed the whole. That is my right hon. Friend's position. I am sure that he is willing to admit that the question of arbitration is arguable, and I am also sure that in considering the future of the service that subject will be bound to come up for consideration. Now I come to the police. As far as the regular police are concerned, their conditions and conciliation machinery are governed by the Act of 1919. Any alteration in that would be a matter for legislation, and although I do not want an easy "get-out" on this I think I should be called to Order if I discussed legislation on a Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Brown

There is nothing in the Police Act of 1919, which I have read with some care, which prevents a decision to-morrow by the Home Secretary that there should be facilities for arbitration in the regular and auxiliary police services.

Mr. Grimston

I am advised that it would mean an Amendment of the Act.

Mr. Brown

That advice is wrong.

Mr. Grimston

Well, we must leave it there for the moment. The pay and conditions of the Police War Reserve are assimilated to the Civil Defence Services, and they have their own machinery, known as the Auxiliary Police Association. Both that Association and the Police Federation have approached my right hon. Friend on questions of pay and arbitration, and he is going to invite both those bodies to discuss these matters with him.

I agree entirely that many of the matters under discussion are not fit subjects to be brought up on the floor of the House, therefore, partly for that reason, and whilst the hon. Member has every right, and perhaps duty, to bring these matters before the House, I think he will agree that, having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend is going to meet these two bodies, it would be a little indivious for him to make a prior pronouncement on any of the points that are going to be discussed.

Mr. Brown

In view of the very large delay, 16 months in one case and 13 in the other, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Home Secretary is going to meet them?

Mr. Grimston

I cannot give a date, but I understand that it will be quite shortly. As my right hon. Friend is going to meet these bodies, I hope that that will give the hon. Member some satisfaction and that, for the reasons that I have stated, he will be content for the moment to let the matter rest there.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford)

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement in the "Fire Fighter" for September, made, I think, by the Secretary of the League of Firemen, an ex-Service organisation either formed or to be formed of members of the N.F.S., in which it was stated that no man would be admitted to membership unless he had become a member of his civilian trade union, whatever that might be, and does he think that entirely desirable in the case of an ex-Service organisation?

Mr. Grimston

I should require notice of a detailed question of that sort. I have not seen the passage in the paper to which my hon. Friend refers. Coming back to the question of the hon. Member for Rugby, I understand that my right hon. Friend hopes to meet the organisations within the next month.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Six o'Clock.