HC Deb 15 May 1962 vol 659 cc1123-5
7. Mr. Lipton

asked the Minister of Works what progress is being made with the rebuilding of 10, Downing Street; and if he will make a statement.

9. Mr. John Hall

asked the Minister of Works why the contractor carrying out the reconstruction work at Downing Street and the Old Treasury building for his Department decided to close the job down and dismiss all his labour.

Lord John Hope

The reconstruction of Nos. 10, 11 and 12, Downing Street is about 60 per cent. complete. The contractors carrying out this work, together with that at the old Treasury building, temporarily closed the site last Friday owing to dislocation of the work arising from two causes: first, the failure of the plumbers to return to work as directed in the finding of a Disputes Commission on 8th March; secondly, the failure of certain trades to implement the agreement reached between the contractors and the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives (London Regional Committee) on the 30th March, 1962.

Mr. Lipton

Has not this little job been attended by a long and dismal tale of bickerings, misunderstandings and stoppages, official and unofficial, and has not the time come for some impartial person of judicial temperament to confer with the Ministry, the contractors and the trade unions concerned with a view to ending this belated process of reconstruction? If a move is not made soon, No. 10, Downing Street will not be ready for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Lord John Hope

I would far rather leave this matter to the good sense of the N.F.B.T.O. and the contractors.

Mr. Lipton

indicated dissent.

Lord John Hope

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I think that that view is right. The leaders of the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives have been extremely co-operative and helpful. They got the agreement, but, unfortunately, they have been subjected to disruptive attacks made upon them at the site, one of which, immediately after the agreement was signed, took the form of a written attack which was freely distributed round the site. I am quite prepared to put it in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the House to see just what the union leaders themselves have been up against.

Mr. Hall

My noble Friend refers to the agreement and to attempts to disrupt it. Will he, for the information of Members, publish these matters in the OFFICIAL REPORT so that we may see why the agreement, freely entered into, has not been honoured by those concerned? Further, can he tell the House how much this refusal to honour the agreement has added to the cost of the work?

Lord John Hope

I said in answer to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that I would put information about the instance I referred to in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is impossible to say exactly how much these stoppages have cost, but it is perfectly obvious that they must have cost a very great deal.

Mr. Mitchison

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties in this matter was that the plumbers were to get less than they were already getting, and, in all the circumstances of the case, will he take care to see that anything he circulates in the OFFICIAL REPORT states both sides of the case? There is something to be said on both sides.

Lord John Hope

What I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT is an example of the incitement to go back upon the agreement which the men's own leaders had made.

Mr. Mitchison

With respect to the Minister, is it not a rather unfortunate and dangerous precedent to put documents of this character which will reveal only part of the story into the OFFICIAL REPORT when what is at issue is the rights and the wrongs of a rather complicated labour dispute?

Lord John Hope

There is no difficulty about it. Agreement is agreement. I am grateful to the N.F.B.T.O. leaders for doing all they could to bring this agreement about. They did it. There were others on the site who went for them because of it, and I do not see why the House and anyone else interested should not know what they are up against.

Mr. Paget

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any authority for the Government putting in the OFFICIAL REPORT propaganda documents which they may have picked up on a building site? Where does such authority come from?

Mr. Speaker

I do not decide what the Minister regards as his Answer. He will put his Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Paget

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister gave an Answer and that Answer did not contain this propaganda document. Can he give a further and reconsidered Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT which forms no part of his first: Answer?

Mr. Speaker

In answer to a supplementary question, the Minister intimated that he would put this material, to which I add no epithet, into the OFFICIAL REPORT. In the circumstances, I am compelled to regard what he proposes to put into the OFFICIAL REPORT as part of his Answer. If the hon. and learned Member does not like it when he sees it, his complaint is against the Minister, not against me.

Mr. Lipton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be possible for the Minister to include also the reasons why there is an official strike going on at the moment?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a question for me or a point of order.

Following is the communication circulated on the site at No. 10, Downing Street:—

[Duplicated document unsigned and unheaded]

In order that trade union organisation should continue to be effective and in order that the active and militant interest be fostered as a vital necessity in the work of the trade unions, we urge the executive members of unions affiliated to the N.F.B.T.O. to take immediate steps to prevent the London Regional Secretary of the N.F.B.T.O. Mr. E. L. Jones from personally and arbitrarily making settlements with employers to the detriment of trade union members directly involved in dispute with such employers and thereby rendering the work of stewards impotent. A settlement thus concluded between Mr. Jones and Messrs. J. Mowlem at the Downing Street reconstruction, committing the craft-man to highly disadvantageous conditions, labourers also, is an insult of the office of the London Regional Secretary and an insult to trade unionists. We call upon our executive to repudiate this settlement concluded by Mr. Jones and further to take immediate steps to prevent Mr. Jones from bringing the trade unions into disrepute.