HC Deb 18 March 1948 vol 448 cc2295-9
Mr. Churchill

May I ask the Minister of Labour a Question of which I have given him Private Notice, after ascertaining which was the Department to which I should put the Question? It is: Whether His Majesty's Government will assume to the full their responsibilities for maintaining the normal services of the House of Commons, and, indeed, of Parliament, in a condition of efficiency, and what steps they propose to take for this purpose?

Mr. Isaacs

The Government accept the fact that they carry a special responsibility for certain buildings, including the Palace of Westminster, and, in discharge of that responsibility, the Government must take steps to maintain the services for which they are directly responsible.

I think the House will wish to know the circumstances in which the present stoppage has occurred. A claim on behalf of Government engineering employees throughout the country made by the Trade Union Side of the Engineering Trades Joint Council for Government Industrial Establishments was heard by the Council on 8th January. At a meeting of the Council on 4th March, there was failure to agree, and a further meeting was arranged for 12th April to enable the Official Side to make inquiries with a view to other proposals. The bulk of the men at present on strike are employed by the Ministry of Works as engineering attendants and have stopped work against the advice of their unions.

These men are Government employees, and I regret they have allowed themselves to be misled into action so clearly at variance with their duty and in defiance of the advice of their trade unions. A continuation of the stoppage by this small minority of the workers concerned in the claim can only hinder progress of the discussions. I hope wiser counsels will prevail, and I would urge them to resume work at once. The established joint machinery has not completed its discussions, and there will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision.

Mr. Churchill

The right hon. Gentleman has given a very interesting answer to the House upon the merits of the dispute. I gather from him that all the recognised machinery of trade union negotiation was in full operation, and that this was a breakaway unofficial strike, but the Question I really addressed to the right hon. Gentleman dealt rather with the responsibility of the Government for maintaining the services of the House. It is not suitable that the House of Commons and the House of Lords, where the affairs of the whole country have to be dealt with, should be deprived of what are considered to be the regular normal services of this House, and I should like to know what steps the Government propose to take to make sure that these services are resumed at the earliest moment.

Mr. Isaacs

I will gladly deal with that point. In the very first sentence of my answer, I said that the Government must take steps. The Government will take steps, but—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer? Perhaps he would rather have a row than a settlement? The Government will take steps, but, quite obviously, it would be unwise to state what steps we shall take. I am hoping that, this statement having been made, wiser counsels will prevail amongst those who are, after all, our fellow-workers in this building, and that they will come back on the job. I think it is interesting to add that there are 12 trade unions affected with this National Joint Council, and that it is only five of these whose members have disregarded its instructions. The other unions are combining With them to get the men back, and, if we can get them back tonight or tomorrow morning, without taking the steps which we must otherwise take, I think it will be a happier settlement.

Mr. Churchill

I need scarcely say that we wish the right hon. Gentleman to have every opportunity of settling this matter in the best possible way, but can we have a guarantee that the normal services of this House will be restored by Monday at the latest?

Mr. Isaacs

Yes, Sir. I hope they can he restored earlier, but that guarantee is given because the work of Parliament, the Legislature and the Judiciary must be kept going.

Mr. Attewell

Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that, while hon. Members dislike the loss of the services which has taken place, this House will regret any introduction of scab labour into this House?

Mr. W. J. Brown

The Minister has told us that the claim of the unions on the staff side was heard in January. Could he tell us when that claim was put in?

Mr. Isaacs

It was first heard in January. The information I have is that the delay in bringing it to the Council was due to delay among the unions themselves in agreeing on what terms they actually wanted to present. Therefore, it ought to be clear to the members of the unions that the long delay that has occurred since they first asked for an increase is not due to the official machinery but to their own side in delaying a decision.

Mr. Brown

Would it be true to say that the delay, prior to January, for which we understand from the Minister the unions themselves are responsible, was of the order of something like 12 months prior to January?

Mr. Isaacs

I really cannot say. I have not got the figures, but, in the short time at my disposal, I have made inquiries. My Department only comes in when a dispute has been notified, and none has been notified to us. There have been very long discussions between the 12 unions concerned on what should be the basis of negotiation.

Mr. Gallacher

In view of the fact that, whoever is responsible, these men have been waiting on a claim for over a year would it not IA the decent thing, instead of talking about replacing them with other labour, for this House to decide that the men should he granted the moderate increase which they are demanding? Should we not give the men this moderate demand and get them back on the job?

Mr. Isaacs

It is because the men have listened to advice such as that instead of to the advice of their own trade unions, who have arranged for a further meeting to continue these negotiations, t tat I think they would be well advised to consider their own union advice first.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the majority of these men have, in fact, given loyal service in this House for very many years, that they are not the kind of men who would be stampeded into action of this sort by the wrong kind of leadership, and, therefore, does not it look as though they have reasonable grievances which ought to have been met long ago?

Mr. Isaacs

We accept the first part of the question without hesitation. All the men have given loyal service, but it is strange that these men, one after the other, should have taken advice, other than the urgent plea of their colleagues. The number on strike represents only a small minority of the men involved. Owing to their action, they are holding up a settlement of their comrades' claims.

Mr. Driberg rose

——

Mr. Speaker

As there is a choice of the men coming back tomorrow, we had better stop these questions now.

Mr. Driberg

I have got up each time to try to put a supplementary question——

Mr. Speaker

F told the hon. Member that I did not call him for a supplementary, and that is that.

Mr. Driberg

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was the only one on my feet at a certain point.

Mr. Speaker

Even so, that is not a reason why I should call a Member.

Mr. Driberg

I beg to apologise. I thought that was the Rule of the House.

Mr. Churchill

With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of Order. I was not quite clear on the reasons which you gave for not allowing any more questions on the subject. Was it because you did not wish any questions to be asked which might prejudice the chance of a settlement, and, if so, and with great respect, is not that rather a matter of merit than one of Order?

Mr. Speaker

It may be a matter of merit, but I should have thought that it was really rather a matter of common sense. I was watching the questions which were being asked, and it struck me that, possibly, they were going to prejudice the chances of a settlement, rather than help it on. Therefore, with that object in mind, I hope that I have not unfairly used my discretion.

Earl Winterton

On that point of Order. I would like, with great respect, to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make your Ruling clearer. Surely, it is for the House to discuss the merits of the question, if it desires to do so. Of course, you may rule otherwise.

Mr. Speaker

There being no Motion before the House, one could not, of course, discuss it. As a matter of fact, I think it is reasonable to allow the Speaker to have discretion in a rather delicate matter, and that was what was at the back of my mind. I did not want to prejudice the House in any way.

Mr. Driberg

I was simply seeking to put a question on a point of information —strictly a point of information. Could I put such a point?

Mr. Speaker

I think I suggested that it was wiser not to put any questions now. I hope the House will agree.