Bailey (Malta) Ltd. (Hansard, 26 February 1963)

HC Deb 26 February 1963 vol 672 cc1061-5 1061

§ 12. Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many working days were lost due to industrial disputes at Bailey (Malta) Ltd. from the time this company took over the dockyard at Malta in 1959 until the present time.

§ Mr. Fisher
I understand that the total number of working days lost up to the time when the Council of Administration took over was nine.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux
Would not my hon. Friend agree that those figures are a remarkable tribute to the industrial relations that were established by the company, considering that a few days before it took over there were riots taking place in the dockyard involving arson, destruction of Government property and physical assault on the admiral superintendent, involving actual bodily harm?

§ Mr. Fisher
I should add that the number of working days lost is not the only criterion. Industrial disputes have led the union to impose a ban on overtime and that effectively prevents any commercial ships going into the dockyard while the ban is on. I should say that a good record of industrial relations would not of itself be any justification for the kind of financial transactions criticised in the Muirie Report.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux
Would not my hon. Friend agree that the first three months' ban on overtime was entirely a pre-election move by the Malta General Workers Union and the present six weeks' ban on overtime, in spite of what the Government promised, is still going on?

§ Mr. Speaker
We cannot go on about this. It almost amounts to a speech.

§ 13. Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in appointing Mr. Muirie to submit a report on Bailey (Malta) 1062 Limited, he instructed him not to take political factors into account.

§ Mr. Fisher
No, Sir. Mr. Muirie was appointed under Clause 8 of the Financial Agreement with the company to inspect its books, and political factors were therefore irrelevant.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux
Would not my hon. Friend agree that, considering the exceptional conditions under which the company was working and the vital necessity of not decreasing the labour force at all in the dockyard, any report which ignored the political factors would be of very limited value?

§ Mr. Fisher
No, I do not think so. We were concerned about the financial transactions of this company. That is why we employed an accountant to look at the books. It was a strictly limited inquiry with that purpose alone. It is for the Government to consider political considerations, not Mr. Muirie.

§ Sir W. Teeling
Would my hon. Friend explain why in the report Mr. Muirie made a point of the fact that he did not have to deal with political matters?

§ Mr. Fisher
That is exactly the point of what I have been saying: he did not have to do so.

§ Sir P. Agnew
Is it not the fact that the matters raised in the Muirie Report are to be the subject of litigation between Her Majesty's Government and Bailey's? Is it not a good thing to suspend judgment upon them until the facts as decided by the courts are known?

§ Mr. Fisher
It is perfectly true that this is a subject of litigation. No one is making any judgments about it. The House knows the contents of the Muirie Report and can make its own judgment on them.

§ 32. Sir W. Teeling
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he first decided to meet the chairman and vice-chairman of Bailey (Malta) Ltd.; and why, in view of the seriousness of the dockyard problem to Malta and the fact that it was then a reserved subject to the British Government, he did not meet these directors immediately after the receipt of the Muirie Report.

1063

§ Mr. Fisher
My right hon. Friend decided last December to see the chairman and vice-chairman as soon as possible after his return from the Caribbean in January. The vice-chairman was so informed on the 14th December. As to the second part of the Question, the period between the date of receipt of the report and the meeting with the chairman and vice-chairman was largely taken up with the consideration of the grave matters raised in the report and the important issues arising out of them.

§ Sir W. Teeling
Was it not a great pity that the Secretary of State did not meet these gentlemen earlier so that a lot of confusion and a great deal of misunderstanding might have been avoided?

§ Mr. Fisher
It may be so, but there were a number of difficulties in arranging the meeting, including my right hon. Friend's illness—which the House will remember occurred in November—his visits to India and Pakistan and to the Caribbean in December and January. Subsequently, there was a certain amount of difficulty in arranging a mutually convenient appointment, which was not really our fault.

§ Mr. Grimond
From the Minister's earlier Answer, are we to understand that in September it was arranged to have this meeting in January, which was before the Secretary of State was ill, and is it not a pity that it could not have been held rather sooner?

§ Mr. Fisher
No. There was never any suggestion that the meeting should be held in September because, in fact, the Bailey company did not receive the Report until November.

§ Mr. Awbery
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in April last year three of the Government-appointed directors resigned, so why was not some action taken in April of last year instead of waiting until December?

§ Mr. Fisher
Action was taken. As soon as those directors resigned we arranged for Mr. Muirie to investigate the books of the company. It was because of their resignation that we did that.

§ Mr. G. M. Thomson
Apart from the the Secretary of State's illness, is not the long delay a reflection of the difficulties 1064 we are having with a Joint Secretary of State for two Departments, with many obligations to go abroad for quite long periods for constitutional talks?

§ Mr. Fisher
That is another matter, and I do not think that it arises on this Question. In any case, it is not one for me. I can assure the hon. Member that no one works harder or more thoroughly than my right hon. Friend.

§ 33. Sir W. Teeling
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Muirie Report on Bailey's Dockyard, Malta, was presented to the Colonial Office and when it was passed on to Bailey Ltd. and to the Prime Minister of Malta; why Bailey (Malta) Ltd. were only allowed about a fortnight to reply to the charges made; and how long this period was extended at the request of the Prime Minister of Malta.

§ Mr. Fisher
The hon. Member's Question suggests that he is under a number of misapprehensions as to the facts. In the circumstances the reply is necessarily rather long and I am circulating it with the Official Report.

§ Sir W. Teeling
I realise that my hon. Friend may think that I am in the wrong, but is it not true that it was four months after the Report was originally produced before it reached either the Bailey company or the Prime Minister of Malta and that they were then given a fortnight in which to reply? Was this really a satisfactory and fair attitude to take when dealing with a company which had ben asked to try to save the situation in Malta?

§ Mr. Fisher
No. The period for receiving the company's comments on the Muirie Report was extended first to 19th December, then to 9th January, then to 21st January, and finally, to 31st January. The company was given four extensions of time in which to comment, covering a total period of more than two months and not two weeks. The requests for the extensions came from the company and not from the Prime Minister of Malta.

§ Sir L. Ropner
Is it not a fact that the present difficulties are being increased because it is now proving impossible to find the books relating to the company?

1065

§ Mr. Fisher
My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Messrs. Bailey saw fit to destroy or remove all the documents and records before the Council of Administration came into operation in March.

Hon. Members
Why?

§ Sir W. Teeling
In view of the rather unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the reply: Mr. Muirie's Report was received on the 15th August, 1962. Copies of it were sent to the Prime Minister of Malta on the 23rd November and to the Company on the 26th November. A notice was served on the Company under clause 7 (a) of the Financial Agreement between the Colonial Office and the Company specifying a number of particulars in which the Company were considered to be in default, and requiring the Company to remedy or make good these defaults within 30 days. This period is the period Laid down in the Agreement itself. The period of a fortnight, to which the hon. Member refers, relates to a different point. The Company were informed that the Secretary of State intended to publish the Muirie Report in the near future and were told that if they desired to make any comments on the facts set out in the Report and would do so within a fortnight the Secretary of State would consider publishing these comments along with the Report. The period of a fortnight was thought to be sufficient for this limited purpose. Nevertheless, extensions were granted on the Company's representations (not at the request of the Prime Minister of Malta). On the 18th January the Company's solicitors stated that interim comments would be supplied to the Secretary of State by the 21st January for deposit with the Report. No comments having been received by that date the Company were informed that their comments should be sent without fail by the 31st January and that if they were not received by that date it would be assumed that it was not the intention of the Company to comment. No comments were received by the 31st January and the Report was published without them.