HC Deb 06 February 1962 vol 653 cc387-96

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

Four days before Christmas, 300 men employed by the firm of Babcock and Wilcox, Limited, on building a power station at West Thurrock, in Essex, were dismissed. This dismissal came as a great shock to the men themselves and to the trade union officials. There had been no previous complaint or warning, and during their two years' work on the site the men had had remarkably little dispute with the firm. Suddenly, the firm made certain allegations. I will not repeat those allegations, but will limit myself to saying that they have not been proved, they have not been examined, and the firm has so far refused a request made by the seven trade unions involved to hold an inquiry.

When working men go on strike without notice, without union approval, without normal negotiation, they come in for a good deal of criticism—they are even called "wildcats"—but here is a firm, working on a Government contract, which has gone on strike without giving notice and without any attempt at negotiations with the trade unions. That is my first complaint.

My second complaint is that those men have not received any unemployment benefit. Out of work now for nearly seven weeks, they have been refused the dole. They are not on strike. They are not suspended. They were given their cards—they were sacked. They believe that they are entitled to unemployment pay—and so do I—and their opinion and mine has been vindicated because, in a recent test case, their claim has been upheld. But even now, after all these weeks, they may have to wait another twenty-one days pending a possible appeal by the insurance officer.

My third complaint is that they were refused National Assistance. They were given various pieces of advice. For example, they were told to dip into their savings, even when their savings at times were less than the amount allowed to other people who draw National Assistance. They were told to spend their holiday credits, even though those holiday credits are part of a national agreement and are meant for holidays, and not to subsidise the National Assistance Board. They were told to claim an Income Tax rebate. If I were to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer details about someone's Income Tax I should soon be told to mind my own business—and quite rightly, but Ministry officials should be told the same.

Apart from the hardship caused to several hundred men and their families, this action by Babcock and Wilcox has had another and alarming result. There has been a long and serious stoppage of work on a scheme of national importance. Other contracting firms are now being involved, and the whole scheme could be brought to a standstill.

I say that there should be a full inquiry. I know very well that the firm and the unions are to meet on Thursday, but that is to be merely a discussion about a possible resumption of work at West Thurrock. What is required is a full inquiry into the circumstances which led to the stoppage. The Minister should insist on that, and I would ask him these last questions. Are mass sackings like this by employers, without negotiation with the trade unions, desirable or acceptable practice? Does the Minister approve of such practice, or will he take steps to stop it?

11.10 p.m.

Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) in what he has said about this dispute. A great many of the people involved on the site are my constituents, and there has recently started another dispute with the same firm in which forty engineers are out on a boilerhouse being constructed at Fords, the reason being somewhat the same as in the case at West Thurrock power station.

The surprising feature of the case, in my view, is that eleven incidents were alleged as the reason for the sackings. These incidents should have been referred to the shop stewards or full-time officials to be investigated fully and dealt with, but the firm refused any joint investigation. However, two responsible trade union officials made a very full investigation themselves and, in their opinion, the eleven alleged incidents on which the place was shut down and the men were sacked were either minor matters which had been cleared up already by the time the officials came to investigate or were accidents common in such work. In the view of these officials, there were no major matters involved at all.

It is the belief of the men and of the responsible officials of the unions concerned that these eleven incidents were just an excuse found for closing down the work when the firm wished to close it down. The men are fortified in their view of the matter by previous history at the site. There had been only one day's dispute in nearly two years on the site, since January, 1960, when a bonus scheme agreed with the unions had been introduced. The bonus scheme had been modified from time to time by agreement, and the last modification had taken place in July, 1961. Suddenly, the firm decided to scrap the whole of that bonus scheme and bring in a new one. It announced its intention to do this after no consultation at all. The effect of the new bonus scheme was, in fact, to cut the amount earned by bonus by about half. The men refused to accept the scheme when it was first put forward and asked to discuss it. They were told that unless they accepted it at once work on the site would close down. It did close down.

The firm Babcock & Wilcox has had an extraordinarily bad reputation recently for inefficiency both nationally and on this particular contract. It is alleged that money has been lost on many recent contracts undertaken by the firm, particularly on those for atomic plants. I was told of many incidents at this particular site where wrong material was set up and then, after it had been set up, it had to be taken down again, the work thus having to be done all over again. The firm appeared to be getting into difficulties with the Electricity Authority because work was behind-hand, and the men feel that the real reason for the dispute taking place is that they were sacked so that the firm could escape the penalty clause in its contract.

As my hon. Friend said, an informal meeting is to take place on 8th February next, but it is important that the Ministry should not only hold a full inquiry, as my hon. Friend suggested, but should intervene in order to get work going again as swiftly as possible in the interests of the men who now are out of work and also in the national interest, because the country needs electricity. There was an acute shortage of electricity during the recent cold spell and the nation has a constantly growing need for more electricity. It is a great waste to have men unemployed when they ought to be doing useful work. I suggest that the Minister, in addition to carrying out an investigation into the cause of the dispute, should do his best to get work moving as soon as possible on the site in the interests of the men concerned and of the nation as a whole.

11.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green)

I can start on one note of agreement with both the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and, I am sure, with all the men on the site, as well as with the firm and all consumers, present and potential, in the area. Of course, I share the anxieties about the consequences of closing down some of the operations in the construction of this important power station. Equally, it is no pleasure to me or to anybody else to see men out of work and a firm also suffering for these reasons.

I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock will forgive me if I turn first to a point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham. He has made the allegation—he did it also at Question Time, I think—that the trouble might have been deliberately provoked by the firm to escape, or find good reason for escaping, the consequences of the penalty clauses in the contract. I understand that there is no penalty clause in the contract. I have no evidence of other possible reasons for this allegation. It would not therefore, be fair for me to talk on this with a lack of direct evidence, nor should anybody else do so.

A number of points have been raised, perhaps the most important of which concerning my Ministry is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour should set up an inquiry. This raises the whole question of procedures in the settlement of disputes. I do not wish to talk tonight in any way about the merits or demerits of the dispute, and I should clearly be out of order if I were to do this before such an inquiry were made.

We are left with the question of whether it is wise and sensible to have an inquiry at all. That is clearly a matter for consideration. It has already been mentioned that negotiations on the site will be resumed on Thursday. I feel most strongly that that process of negotion, which is well within the proper procedural arrangements of the engineering industry, should continue without any threat or sanction from me. I am certain at this stage it should be left quite unfettered.

As both hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend's officers have been closely following what has been going on in this dispute, and nothing that I have said should be taken to mean that we are completely ignorant about matters on the site. We should, however, have to make a directly interested examination of what has gone on before we could possibly decide whether an inquiry should be held. So far, because the procedures agreed between the two sides are by no means exhausted, my right hon. Friend has had no opportunity to settle down and consider officially whether there should be an inquiry.

Mr. Delargy

The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about a dispute. It is not really a dispute. It takes two to make a dispute. It is not the men who have caused this state of affairs, but the bosses by the action they have taken. Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that at no time should there be an inquiry into what has been happening over the last two months, that it should be left simply at that and that work should be resumed as though nothing had happened?

Mr. Green

Perhaps the hon. Member did not understand what I was getting at. I know of no other word than "dispute" to cover the situation. By so describing it, I am doing my proper job and not taking sides or entering into the merits or demerits of the situation. If my right hon. Friend were to say that he would hold an inquiry while the procedures that exist between the two sides are not exhausted—and, indeed, are about to be resumed on Thursday—the proper procedures would be prevented from functioning. I am quite sure that would not be a result desired by any trade union or indeed by any employer. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that we are really trying to follow a proper, steady, consistent line in our approach to the labour relations of the two parties, and in securing, where-ever possible, that agreed procedures between unions and employers are followed and carried through. That, I understand, is the situation in this case, and therefore, I am quite certain that at the present time an inquiry would be misplaced.

I think it is unnecessary for me to detail what are the agreed procedures in the engineering industry, but I am willing to do so if either hon. Member wishes to know.

I will now turn to the other two questions which the hon. Gentleman raised. Hitherto, I hope, I have not been giving a dusty answer, because it is not my desire to do so, but I am in some difficulty in answering the points about unemployment pay and National Assistance because they are not strictly the concern of my Ministry. We act, so to speak, as paying agents and I think both hon. Members know this. Matters of policy and principle on these two points, therefore, should really be referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mr. Delargy

I was aware of that, but I raised it on this Adjournment because I could hardly ask for two Adjournments on the same subject, and I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman will draw these matters to the attention of his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Green

I appreciate that point, and I think the hon. Gentleman and I understand each other on this matter.

Perhaps I can briefly set out what is the general rule in the payment of unemployment benefit and of National Assistance in cases of this sort. They are general rules which we as agents of course seek to follow. By Section 43 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1946, and the Regulations made under it claims for unemployment benefit are decided by three statutory authorities—the insurance officer, the local tribunal, and the National Insurance Commissioner. The insurance officer may refer the case for decision to the local tribunal or may himself decide it. If he decides it himself there is a right of appeal to the local tribunal. There is a further right of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner against a decision of the local tribunal. These, of course, are built in for the protection of the individuals who may be affected.

Section 13 (1) of the National Insurance Act lays down that subject to certain provisos a person who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage of work continues. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that we could get up an argument about the word "dispute" at this point, but I hope that the point will become clearer as I go on.

A trade dispute is defined by Section 13 (6, b) of the Act as being any dispute between employers and employees or between employees and employees which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms or conditions of employment, of any persons, whether they are in the employment of the employer with whom the dispute arises or not.

In this particular case there was some doubt about the unemployment benefit claims made by those affected by the stoppage at the West Thurrock site. It was therefore arranged, by agreement with the trade unions concerned, that two test claims, representative of the men involved, should be referred to the statutory authorities. The insurance officer referred these to the local tribunal for decision. I understand that the cases were heard on 1st February and that the tribunal decided that the claims should be allowed. I have, of course, no power to comment on or to intervene in the decision of the statutory authorities. The insurance officer has a right of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioners against the tribunal's decision. When he exercises this right within twenty-one days, the payment of benefit is suspended pending the Commissioners' decision. That is the factual matter on which the hon. Member can base an approach to my right hon. Friend if he wishes to pursue it further.

The question of National Assistance to those affected by the closure is a question for the National Assistance Board. Section 9 (1, 3) of the National Assistance Act, 1948, however, provides that an assistance grant shall not be made to meet the requirements of any person, other than the requirements of dependants, for any period during which he is without employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment. The term "trade dispute" has the same meaning as in the National Insurance Act, the definition which I read. That is the factual information, and I hope that it will be of use to the hon. Member.

I think that I should end where I began. For the reasons which I have given I can say no more tonight than that with all the normal procedures agreed within the engineering industry continuing as a consequence of the resumption of talks on Thursday, I hope that this matter will come right and that work will rapidly be resumed.

I cannot possibly say what might and what might not be my right hon. Friend's attitude if or when the proper procedures are exhausted, but I assure both hon. Members that there is quite a lot of room within the procedures still left for this dispute—and I must still call it a dispute—to be reasonably and promptly settled. I want to see these agreed procedures work, and I am sure that everybody else concerned with the matter wants to see them work. I am extremely anxious to say nothing tonight which will prevent them from working properly, or prejudice either side in the resumed talks on Thursday.

Mr. Parker

Surely the hon. Member recognises that the dispute started on 21st December and that from then to 8th February is a long time before the first meeting takes place to try to settle it. Surely the Minister of Labour can do something to try to speed up the normal procedures if they are not working smoothly.

Mr. Green

I see the point of the intervention, but I cannot stress too much that it is the experience of every Minister and junior Minister of Labour that if one attempts prematurely or unwisely to intervene in a trade dispute or industrial dispute while the procedures which are agreed and built in between the two sides are still not exhausted, one destroys the basis upon which disputes are settled—that is by negotiation between the two sides of industry. It must often have been tempting for a Minister of Labour—I refer to Ministers of both parties—to say, "This is going on very slowly and something is wrong." The temptation to intervene has, in my view rightly, generally been resisted until the point of time is reached when the normal procedures are genuinely exhausted. Then a new initiative must come from somewhere. If it is to come from the Ministry of Labour it must surely come from a Ministry which has not previously made any judgment on what may be the merits or demerits of the case.

I am concerned to make it as clear as I can to both hon. Members, and through them to their constituents, that we must do our level best to be above this battle, and to enter no arguments ahead of the events on either side.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.