HC Deb 10 March 1949 vol 462 cc1588-96

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

1.48 a.m.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I wish to raise certain questions with regard to the Government control of labour. Last Tuesday I asked the Minister of Labour to identify the Orders which remain in force which had been made under Regulations 58A and 58AA and he gave an answer which was a very full answer. It took up a whole page of HANSARD and appeared in cols. 969 and 970 on Tuesday, 8th March. There were altogether 27 orders made under these two regulations; 27 orders now in force. But analysed, these 27 included 14 orders fully in operation, three orders partly in operation and the remaining 10 were described as not being operated. I want to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary why these 10 orders are retained in force if they are not now operative.

Are they being kept, perhaps, for the next war? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in particular why it is necessary to retain in force the Evacuated Persons Registration Order of 1940. Again, why should there remain in force 13 pages of the Essential Work (Building and Civil Engineering) Order of 1942? Is it kept in force merely because at some time it might be found handy by the Minister? Surely the Minister of Labour ought to revoke orders no longer in operation, revise the remainder of that series, and consolidate the set into one convenient order?

The orders described in the answer as being fully in operation are found, if examined, not really to be so because in many cases they are never enforced. I would take for example Article 4 of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order of 1940. This Order, which is designed to prohibit lock-outs and strikes, is being consistently flouted. I think myself that it is a bad order; it is wrong in time of peace that the Government should interfere in strikes or lock-outs. But if the Government are going to maintain that order alive, then they should enforce it. If they are not prepared to enforce it, they should revoke it, because to maintain such an order nominally in force, but not enforced, is to bring that law into contempt. There have been innumerable strikes which have been direct infringements of that order, but no action has been taken by the Minister of Labour. Contrast the inaction of the Minister in such cases with his treatment of individuals. If a coalminer tries to leave the coal industry he is directed back and if he does not obey that direction he is punished. The same with agricultural workers.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a case which occurred at Nottingham—a somewhat exceptional case in which the Eagle Star Insurance Company were prosecuted for giving temporary employment to a typist without the permission of the Ministry of Labour. They employed that typist while the Ministry was still trying to find her work, and continued to employ her for some time. In fact, they are still employing her. During this period the Ministry sent her to no fewer than five prospective employers, none of whom found her suitable. Having failed to find her employment, the Ministry prosecuted the Eagle Star Insurance Company for infringement of the order. The company were prosecuted and convicted but the typist, nevertheless, was allowed to remain in their employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

What is the hon. Gentleman complaining about? Does he think that we should have punished the typist as well.

Sir J. Mellor

I was merely pointing out the futility of this procedure when the Minister was not prepared to exercise his powers of direction to enforce his will. The whole thing is ridiculous. The Ministry of Labour cannot find this typist a job after trying time after time. and then object to the Eagle Star Insurance Company employing her.

There is a sequel to this, or a matter perhaps in some way related to it, about which I wish to ask a few questions. There was another prosecution last Friday in Nottingham. Two officials of the Ministry of Labour were convicted of accepting bribes and were each sentenced to nine months imprisonment. I understand that one of these officials was the official who laid the information against the Eagle Star Insurance Company. I want to ask at what level the decision was taken in the Ministry with regard to the prosecution of the Eagle Star Insurance Company. During the case against these officials, it was apparent from the statement by the counsel for one of them—the one who, as I understand it, laid the information against the Eagle Star Insurance Company—that it was within his competence to determine whether or not a prosecution should take place under the Control of Engagement Order. This is what his counsel, Mr. A. M. Lyons, K.C., said: Rice, before any question of gifts arose. decided there would be no prosecution. That was according to the "Nottingham Herald" of 5th March. Therefore, the case for this man assumed that he had power to determine whether a prosecution should take place, and it was alleged that he decided not to prosecute before he received any money. I ask therefore in the case of the Eagle Star Insurance Company, against which this man laid the information, was the decision to prosecute taken by Rice, or was it taken at some higher level? If it was by Rice. it was most improper for the decision whether or not to prosecute to be left in such hands. The Draft Declaration on Human Rights, in Article 24, contains the statement: Everyone has a right to free choice of employment. I want to add to that another interesting quotation which appears in the report of the International Labour Conference dealing with the employment service organisation. There the representative of the United Kingdom, Miss Mary Smieton, the committee's reporter, said as follows: The employment service is a voluntary service and depends therefore for its effectiveness on its own efficiency on the one hand. and the use that is made by employers and workers on the other. If those are the principles to which the Government are committed in the international field why is it we cannot have any freedom of employment at home? Why is it they will not practice in the United Kingdom what they preach at San Francisco.

I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to amplify the answer given to me by the Minister of Labour on 20th January. I asked him if he was aware that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers said on 22nd December that the National Coal Board had agreed to a closed shop, and, in the circumstances, will he give an assurance that in no case will any labour controls be used in such a way as to require a mineworker to join a union against his wishes. The Minister who made no denial of the facts, simply replied: The only thing I can say is that it is not the Government's intention to do anything that will break down agreements entered into between employers and workers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1949; Vol. 460, col. 335.] I think we should have some fuller statement from the Minister. If there is any possibility of a closed shop being applied to the mining industry it is entirely wrong to maintain any control which will force men to remain in that industry. At the present moment the right hon. Gentleman wants to obtain many more recruits for that industry. He would find it much easier if he lifted the control so that men would know, if they should want to go out, that it would be quite easy for them to do so.

I read in the Civil Appropriation Account that the Ministry of Labour have established a thing called the National Institute of House Workers Limited which is supposed to train people for domestic service. The cost according to the Comptroller and Auditor-General's statement to train one individual for a period of six months is no less than £160. I want to ask why the Ministry think it worth while to spend so much money training people for domestic service when by means of the Control of Engagement Order they prevent other people coming into it. Surely they should make up their minds what they want.

I think all these controls of labour are most unfortunate because they are tending to freeze people in their jobs. Many people are unwilling to leave their jobs because they can only go to other jobs through the Ministry. They do not know where they will then get to. At the present time unemployment is increasing. There is more than appears in the figures given by the Ministry. There is a great deal of short time. I should like perhaps in conclusion to congratulate the Ministry of Labour upon one thing. They have succeeded in producing another million workers in the course of the last week just like rabbits out of a hat.

2.5 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has raised a matter which he has raised on many previous occasions in one form or another. He has put the same question, and no matter how many answers we give him he always puts the same questions if the answers have nothing to do with his way of thinking. I think his recapitulation of the orders that were in existence was slightly wrong. Perhaps I might put them into the proper context. There arc seven effective orders plus Article 5 of the Essential Works Order. Those are the powers remaining with the Ministry; the orders which are effective. Then there are nine other orders which are ineffective. Those are the orders about which he complains, apparently.

Let me meet his first point with regard to those orders which have now ceased to have effect. Within a short period of time we shall be taking the necessary action to revoke those orders which have fallen into disuse, and we shall consider consolidating the remaining powers, in one order or perhaps in two, so that the House will understand exactly what we are using and for what purpose. The hon. Baronet complains about the effect of these orders. It will be of interest to him to know that since October, 1947, to the end of December, 1948, under the orders about which he complains, only 29 directions were issued in this country. With regard to the orders that were previously on the Statute Book—that is the ring fence around mining and agriculture—in the same period from October, 1947, to December, 1948, 374 directions were issued to men who were in the mining industry compelling them to remain in that industry, and 132 directions were issued to men in agriculture keeping them in agriculture.

The hon. Baronet apparently complains about that. He takes the view that our economy can go "bust" that we can have the maximum freedom in this country and be dependant upon other countries for the means to maintain our standard of living. Apparently he is not prepared to pay any price at all in order to get complete independence for this nation. I think it should go on the record that the hon. Baronet has sought on every occasion to prevent this Government carrying out a policy which will make this country solvent.

Sir J. Mellor

That is exactly where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the more freedom we have the more prosperous we shall become.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. Baronet is always ready to build cinemas before houses, and apparently that is his mentality in relation to the task of dealing with the economic situation in which we are placed. The effectiveness of these orders has meant that we have been able to get a move on with the electricity generating plants; we have been able to increase the manpower in the mining industry; and we were able to supply the agrciultural labour which was required to bring in the harvest. All these things have been done, and we are satisfied that without those powers we should be unable to maintain the standard of life that we have achieved in this country. Part of our success in restoring our economic equilibrium has been due to the functioning of these powers.

The hon. Baronet raised a number of points. He raised, first of all, the question of the Eagle Star Company prosecution. He also referred to the Declaration of Human Rights, the N.C.B. and the closed shop, the cost of the Domestic Workers Institute, and then he talked about short time. I have had no notice about a number of those points; however, I am not complaining. Is it suggested that we should not have prosecuted the Eagle Star Company? Is it suggested that that big financial Corporation should go free and that the individual worker should be prosecuted? Of what does he really complain? Here is a company that defied the law of the country; the prosecution was undertaken after the company had been informed on at least three occasions that it was defying the law, and only because it was defiant about this matter the prosecution was undertaken. The prosecution was undertaken as a result of a decision at the Ministry. In every case of this sort a prosecution is undertaken with the knowledge of either the Minister or myself. No civil servant out in the regions has the right to decide whether a prosecution will be taken. Whatever may have been said at the trial to which the hon. Baronet referred, that is the fact. Prosecutions are decided on in London, and nowhere else.

He also asked why we did not proceed against the typist. I am satisfied, from a study of the papers, that this girl, who did not know her way about too well in this country, was as much a victim of circumstances as anyone else. I am not quite satisfied that the girl was uninfluenced in the action she took, but it would be unfair to penalise her when the guilty party was this rich British company, which knew what it was doing and did it in defiance—

Sir J. Mellor

And where she is still employed.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Would the hon. Gentleman have her removed from that place. The girl was not the culprit. The culprit was the Eagle Star Company. Having punished them, I took the view, and the Minister did so too, that we should be vindictive if we removed the girl from there after a successful prosecution. I think perhaps the hon. Baronet would have taken that view if he had had to deal with the matter.

I want to deal now with the closed shop. Apparently he objects to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers getting together to decide how to collect union dues. There is nothing illegal about it. It has been done for a long time in many industries. The worker signs a form of contract whereby deductions are permitted from his wages. If the N.C.B. does not get the authority to deduct the contributions they cannot do so. What will arise afterwards is hypothetical, but so far our position is this: we shall endeavour to get every man we possibly can in the mining industry, in order to give us the best possible result.

With regard to the Declaration of Human Rights, obviously the hon. Baronet has not studied it. If he will look at it, he will see that it is hedged around. It is the policy of the Government to establish, as soon as we can afford it as a nation, complete freedom for employers and workers, but we cannot do that while we depend for our standard of living on aid from another nation. We must stand on our own feet before we start exercising the full liberty that we all want to see. We ought not to do it at the expense of America.

One other point with regard to domestic workers, is he suggesting that we would direct a trained domestic worker into some other industry, that the Ministry would go to all that trouble of training a domestic worker, as a result of the policy laid down by the Coalition Government, which he supported, and then—

Sir J. Mellor

The Ministry is stopping large numbers of people who wish to go into domestic service from doing so because of the prolongation of this order.

Mr. Ness Edwards

There is no justification for that statement. I challenge the hon. Member to produce a single case proving that statement. He makes statements to the House which have no relation to fact, which are not doing the country any good, and which are doing his own reputation a great deal of harm.

Sir J. Mellor

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that women between 18 and 40 are entitled to go into domestic service without interference from the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I ask the hon. Member to produce a single case where the Ministry has used its powers to prevent any woman within the controlled ages from going into domestic service. The fears that exist in his mind have no existence in reality. I wish he would drop this political game, and help us to pull this country out of its difficulties.

Sir J. Mellor

Would not the right thing be for the right hon. Gentleman to revoke his orders?

Mr. Ness Edwards

We shall do that as soon as we have got this country on its feet. Then we shall be entitled to enjoy liberties. We cannot as a nation enjoy liberties that other nations have to pay for.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes past Two o'Clock.