HC Deb 19 March 1951 vol 485 cc2261-70

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

11.49 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Bevins (Liverpool, Toxteth)

The matter which I wish to raise tonight is one which concerns only one individual, but it involves a matter of such principle that I think it only right to raise it on the Floor of the House. I shall be as concise as possible, and I propose not to argue the case but merely to give the House a recital of the facts as I understand them. The gentleman who forms the subject of this debate is a Mr. Thomas Kain, who lives in the Borough of Gateshead, and is a married man with two children. This man has been employed for a period of 18 years continuously with the Gateshead Corporation, latterly as a charge-man. He has also been a member of the Municipal and General Workers' Union uninterruptedly for a period of 20 years.

I should like to emphasise his membership of the Municipal and General Workers' Union for so lengthy a period because it is, I think, relevant to this debate. In July, 1949, this man, who as I say is a charge-man, was detailed to remove a heap of pit refuse laying about somewhere around Gateshead. When he was asked to do this job, he referred to the local branch secretary of his trade union and put to him the suggestion that he might put it forward to his employer that he and his mates might be paid an incentive bonus for the job. According to Mr. Kain, he said: In the first place I made inquiries from my Union secretary if they had any objection from a trade union point of view as against me trying to get an incentive bonus scheme introduced on this particular job, and the answer was, 'None, whatsoever.' Mr. Kain then suggested that an incentive bonus should be paid by his employers, and I am given to understand that he was informed verbally by Gateshead Corporation, or by one- of their representatives, that the job would be paid on some such basis. The job proceeded and, I understand about 18,000 cubic yards of pit refuse was shifted by six men in a period of about 10 weeks, which I believe, according to my friends who know something about this, is very good going.

On completion of the work, Mr. Kain was told by the representative of the Gateshead Corporation that they would not agree to the payment of any bonus, whereupon Mr. Kain appealed to the local branch secretary of his trade union and pleaded with him that he should intervene with his employers and try to get some satisfaction for him. The local branch secretary of his union refused to intervene and Mr. Kain, in order to show his resentment, decided to refrain from paying his trade union subscriptions. I do not say the immediate sequel, but the sequel to that was that shortly afterwards Kain received a letter from the Gateshead Corporation which said: In consequence of your not being a member of your trade union, I am instructed that, in accordance with the Council's decision, you are to terminate your employment with the Corporation seven days from the above date. Mr. Kain then applied for unemployment pay and—this is perhaps one of the most astounding features of the case—he was refused unemployment pay on the grounds that he had voluntarily left his employment. On 27th November, 1950, the Gateshead Unemployment Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the same grounds that he had voluntarily left his employment, but added that Kain was placed in a position of unusual difficulty by the failure of the branch secretary to supply him with the information to which he was entitled, which, I assume, is a reference to the failure of the trade union branch secretary to take up the question of incentive bonus with the Gateshead Corporation. Later still, on 14th February of this year, the National Insurance Commissioner decided to allow Mr. Kain's appeal to unemployment pay and if the House will allow me, I should like to read just two extracts from the final decision of the Tribunal. The first is: The reason given by the present claimant for his failure to pay his subscription is that he could get no satisfaction from the branch secretary in response to his appeal that the union should take up the question of his incentive scheme with his employers. I read that because those are not my words but the words of the National Insurance Commissioner. The second is: A claimant cannot be regarded as voluntarily leaving his employment without just cause if he is discharged for refusing to pay his union subscription because he has a genuine dispute with his trades union. All that I need to add is that from that day to this Mr. Kain has not been reinstated by his former employers, Gateshead Corporation.

I do not want at this late hour to argue the merits or the demerits of this dispute as between Mr. Kain and his trade union or between Mr. Kain and the Gateshead Corporation, because candidly I do not think the merits of the dispute, in that sense, are basically important to our discussion. What I think is important is that here is a man who has been employed by one local authority for something like 20 years and has been a loyal member of the trade union for a period of 18 years, who is sacked from his employment because he has a genuine dispute with his union and refrains, in consequence, from paying his trade union subscription. That seems to me to be a complete travesty of British justice.

I put it no higher than that, and I do not want to introduce any heat into this small debate at this hour of the night; but I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that here is a British citizen who has not had justice from those who have employed him, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to give serious thought to some form of intervention with the Gateshead Corporation, or, at least, to the making of some representations to that local authority, in order to close what is a not very happy chapter in this man's life.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. J. Hall (Gateshead)

Mr. Kain is a constituent of mine. Therefore, I was very much interested when I heard that the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) was to bring this matter before the House tonight. I may say that Mr. Kain has not made any representations to me. Naturally, I should have expected that a constituent of mine who was in difficulty and wished the matter to be raised in this House would have brought the matter before his Member; but I am appreciative of the fact that the hon. Member opposite gave me notice that he would raise this matter in the House.

When the case was first mentioned, I noticed that the hon. Member had a Question on the Order Paper in regard to the unemployment benefit. That matter has been satisfactorily put right to Mr. Kain's benefit. But I can assure the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no question of political controversy so far as this matter is concerned. There has been no desire inside the council chamber to question the action of the Council in dispensing with this man's services, nor has there been any question in the local Press on the matter.

For a long time the Gateshead Council has accepted the position of allowing any trade union or professional organisation to bring up questions relating to membership in order to get them settled on a harmonious basis. In the main, the relations between the Council and the employees have been of a very cordial nature. It is true that Mr. Kain has had a long service with the Council, that he was a good worker, but he was a charge-hand who on three occasions tried to work in an ordinary capacity, and consequently there was a certain amount of feeling, possibly, among the ordinary members of the trade union. That is the background of this particular dispute.

Having heard of the dispute I took particular pains to ascertain the facts. They are very simple. The hon. Gentleman has said that Kain was employed on a certain job where he demanded payment by results. He was unable to get the Council to assent to his request. It is a very difficult matter for the Council to measure work of this nature, and it would mean the employment of additional staff to do so. He went to the union, and whether we like it or not—and I personally do not like piece-work payments in local government service—he was told by the trade union that they' could not move in the matter because it was not Joint Industrial Council policy. Consequently, he felt aggrieved with the union, and withheld his contributions. This was carried on for a long time, and the matter was then raised with the Council by the trade union who asked that the man should resume his membership or leave the service of the Council.

There is complete harmony between the trade union, the men and the Council. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman opposite that it is quite possible that interference of this kind by the Government or anyone else would destroy that harmony. Therefore, we ought not to interfere too much with local government which is carrying on a great work. It is good for local government administration that things of this nature should be settled by local government itself, and that when a council does not interfere with trade union matters unless requested to do so by the trade union or the professional organisation, that council should not be interfered with by a Government Department or by anyone else.

12.4 a.m.

Miss Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I do not want to enter the discussion which has taken place between the two hon. Gentlemen, but I want to say one thing to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry on this occasion. I noticed with considerable regret and apprehension that, immediately, unemployment benefit was discontinued by the local labour exchange in this case. I take a very poor view of that decision. It seems to me that it is no part of our administration, or should not be, to adjudicate on matters of this kind, and indeed the final decision proves that my own thoughts are right in this matter.

First of all, I ask that the whole decision of the National Insurance Commissioner should be entered on the records of the House, and I ask for an undertaking that in the future the Department will consider the interests of the applicant who has paid his full insurance contributions to the scheme; and that if there is to be any appeal on this matter, it should be an appeal against the Department for granting unemployment benefit. I do not think that in a matter of dispute it is for the Department to take sides against a man who is a contributor to the scheme. I hope for an assurance that in future this apparent policy of the Ministry will be reversed.

12.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren)

If I may deal with the points raised by the hon. Lady, let me say, first, that I have nothing at all to do with the Ministry of National Insurance, and if she wants assurances from the Ministry it is for her to go to the Minister concerned; but I would recommend that before she takes a poor view of anything, she might at least try to find out the facts; and the facts are not quite in accord with the general attitude she has taken this evening.

We are speaking of the Borough of Gateshead, and perhaps I may take this opportunity of saying that from my Ministry's point of view, and from the point of view of this House, we are sorry to have learned today that the Mayor of Gateshead passed away during the night. He was a first-class fellow who had taken his full share in local government. I take particular pride in this fact, because he was a fellow railwayman and, like so many railwaymen, he had given a great deal of time to local government. We express our regret to his relatives and to Gateshead at the passing of a very worthy mayor.

Turning to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that local government is local government, and it has been a charge levelled against His Majesty's Government, and perhaps even previous Governments, that more and more the centre tends to take away powers from the local authority. Yet here we have folk coming and asking us to supersede an action of people elected in a locality. After all, here we have the Member for the Division, who lives there, knows the people, and knows all the facts locally; and then someone comes and asks those sitting in chairs at Whitehall to intervene in what is obviously some local problem. One would estimate that those in the locality who know all the facts would be better able to settle it. However, on a general basis it has been the practice, so far as local government is concerned—except for one or two statutory officers, such as the sanitary inspector and the medical officer of health, to whom even Tory Governments had to give the protection of the State, because local landlords were likely to use their powers to victimise them and prevent them from doing their jobs properly——

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

Do landlords interfere with public assistance officers?

Mr. Lindgren

We are talking about England, not Scotland. The Minister has no power to intervene at all unless he has reason to believe that the local authority is, by its action in regard to certain officers not able to perform its functions. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who raised this point would suggest that the action of choosing a builder's labourer or a charge-hand, in so far as a particular local authority is concerned, is likely to upset the standard of social service provided by the borough in that area. The Minister has no power to intervene, but even if he had the power to intervene, I think these matters of industrial discipline are surely much better dealt with locally, in conjunction with the man's union, than by a Minister in Whitehall.

Mr. Bevins

Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that, even if he were convinced that a local authority had abused their power in relation to an individual, he would not be prepared to do anything about it?

Mr. Lindgren

I am suggesting that if there was such an abuse, a demand for its correction is much more likely to arise spontaneously in the area in which it took place, and it is much better to deal with the matter in the area than from an office in Whitehall. Surely the local authority, knowing the people concerned and the circumstances surrounding the case, are much more able to judge the rights of a case than even the hon. Gentleman who, in all good faith, has made the statement to which we have just listened. The Minister has no power to intervene, unless he has reason to believe that by their action the local authority are endangering the performance of their statutory obligations in their area. I am afraid I must leave the matter there. It must be left to those in the locality, who are acting on behalf of the gentleman concerned, to deal with the case as they consider best.

Mr. Bevins

I am not ungrateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I realise the extent of his powers under the Local Government Act, 1948, but surely if he believes, as he must do, that there is even a possibility of injustice in this case, there is nothing to prevent his right hon. Friend from informally talking the thing over with the Gateshead authority, whatever the provisions of the Local Government Act are.

Mr. Lindgren

From the chronological series of events set out by the hon. Gentleman, there seems to me to be more in this than meets the eye. A man who has been in a job for 18 years and a member of his union for 20 years does not suddenly walk out——

Mr. Bevins

He was sacked.

Mr. Lindgren

—without weighing the consequences. He "de-moted" himself a number of times. There seems to be more in this case than appears in the bare facts. There is the temperament of the individual. I do not know him. He might be one of those individuals who every now and again tells his foreman, or whoever is above him, what he can do. They have been known in industry, particularly in this type of work. We do not know all the facts. Surely the place to deal with any abuse is in the area itself. I have sufficient faith in the ordinary men and women in any employment to say that if they felt that one of their comrades was being dealt with harshly, they would take steps to deal with the matter.

Mr. Bevins

The hon. Gentleman is saying that if the colleagues, or comrades, of the gentleman thought he was having a raw deal, they themselves would probably do something about it. If that were the case, how does he explain that this gentleman was denied unemployment benefit by the appeal tribunal at Gateshead and not a single voice was raised either by the hon. Gentleman's friend sitting behind him or by anybody else in Gateshead in support of his plea?

Mr. Lindgren

The hon. Gentleman has given me my case. I do not want to deal with it, because it is not my Ministerial responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of? National Insurance.

Miss Irene Ward

Why is she not here?

Mr. Lindgren

Because the matter was directed to my Department.

Miss Ward

She might come and listen.

Mr. Lindgren

If the hon. lady would listen, I might be able to explain the matter to her. The rejection of this appeal by the Ministry of National Insurance is to me prima facie evidence that there is something fishy in it. An insurance officer is skilled in sorting out cases and in summing up an individual and all the circumstances, and he is not often very far wrong. If this case went through the local officer to the tribunal and then on to the Ministry for a final decision, that shows to me that at least there was an arguable case for the decision first taken, and that, perhaps, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman which I, myself, do not know. With the experience I have had of local government and industrial work, I would say that if there was an injustice, there would be an attempt made by the people in the area to see that justice be done. Even if the man had been unfairly treated by his trade union, action would be taken to call attention to it. That has not been done, as the hon. Gentleman has admitted. Therefore, I assume there is much more in the case than his evidence goes to show: and I am afraid I must leave it there.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.