§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]
§ 12.20 a.m.
§ Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)I have a disagreeable duty to do tonight. Nevertheless it is a duty, and that is to expose as much as possible in the short time at my disposal the activities of Mr. Alan Law, who is a trade union organiser for the Transport and General Workers' Union in Birmingham.
I am grateful to the Minister for coming down to the House for this debate. I do not mean to attack the Government or him in any way; neither do I intend to attack the trade unions, employers or employees. This is purely a matter of the disruptive activities of this particular individual who seeks to sabotage, and does in fact sabotage, the productivity of industry in the Midlands.
We hear a lot about bad examples of employers and strikers, but this case is one of the worst I have ever heard of in industrial relations. To this man codes of practice, points of honour, gentleman's agreements, even signed agreements by him, and national agreements, mean nothing at all. He breaks all these things at will. He ruins businesses and throws workers out of a job and prevents many good men from earning a living.
I would not have thought this was a proper field of activity for a trade union organiser, but there is more to it than that. This man, in settling industrial disputes which he has caused, also extorts money from employers, and, in fact, from employees, and the sums of money which he has extracted to settle disputes and put men back into jobs vary from £5 to £5,000 in individual cases.
I call in evidence one particular case, that of a Mr. Richardson of an Oldbury 1081 transport business, who had to pay Mr. Law £350 to end a strike. Whether or not the strike was justified does not concern me so much in this particular case. I have not gone into it, and neither has Mr. Law explained it to anybody, but he did receive £350 to end the strike. Very shortly afterwards, Mr. Law went back to Mr. Richardson and asked him for £500, otherwise there would be another strike.
By this time, much had gone on, and Mr. Richardson, the manager, had learned his lesson and refused this money. He chose to close down his business rather than pay it. This indeed he had to do.
Mr. Law has been challenged about this. He is not very forthcoming; all he would say to the Press was that he was not prepared to say where the money went to. Mr. Law has never denied receiving the money, as far as I know.
I take one other instance, that of Mr. Fleetwood, because he has been known to me in the past, and I read about his case in the newspaper. He arrived at his business one day to find the men on strike, without any warning. The strike had been called at Mr. Law's instructions and some employees did not know what it was about. A meeting was fixed immediately for negotiations after Mr. Fleetwood had discovered, through the Press, that the strike had been called by Mr. Law. Mr. Law prevented the union representatives attending the meeting so that the strike continued. There was no means by which Mr. Fleetwood could settle the matter. He wrote to his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who I am sure is as concerned about this as I am. Shop stewards were instructed to black Mr. Fleetwood's deliveries if any should be made.
I mention this to show the type of activity in which Mr. Law engages. He shuts down businesses and sabotages industry. He was not concerned to get a settlement with Mr. Fleetwood or to get better terms for the employees. His first duty, whatever he intended later, was to get a strike and stop Mr. Fleetwood's business. Money was extracted to settle strikes. It is difficult to find out where the money goes to. We have finished discussing the Finance Bill, but it would be interesting to know whether 1082 the Revenue has any way of collecting tax on this money. In one case £5,000 was extracted during a strike caused not by any action of the employer but through an inter-union dispute between Mr. Law representing the Transport and General Workers' Union and the United Road Transport Union.
Now we come to Mr. Dennis Mills—I call him one of the stormtroopers of Mr. Dictator Law. He says that all the activities are the rule of law. Firms have been closed down, he admits, and goods carried by other unions are blacked on the instructions of Mr. Law. He says that this is a legitimate way of going on. Wherever Mr. Law decides to settle we find there are immediately lightning strikes, breaches of agreement, deliberate delays in negotiations and, although I realise that this is a serious thing to say, I consider that it is nothing short of a blackmail and protection racket that Mr. Law is running.
He considers that he is operating within the law, and it may be that the reversal of the Rookes v. Barnard legislation enables him to go a long way. We have studied some serious cases of blackmail and protection rackets. The most famous one that comes to mind is that of Rachman. This case, if it were not a trade union involved, would compare with Rachman.
§ Mr. GurdenThere is no question of bad relations between employer and employee until Mr. Law creates it. One worker I know was asked for £5 to keep his job. Another man whom I was asked to go and see, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northfield, was a very sad case indeed. He had crossed Mr. Law after working very closely with him over a number of years. But he annoyed Mr. Law in some way or other—probably at a trade union branch meeting—and shortly afterwards found himself out of a job. This man could not get another job, because every new appointment made through the Transport and General Workers' Union has to go through Mr. Law. Therefore, no employer could employ this man in his sphere of activity unless Mr. Law agreed, and he would not. This man appealed to Mr. Urwin, and he showed me the 1083 sympathetic correspondence that he had with him. What happened to him ultimately I do not know. The last time I say him he had been out of work for some time, after being a good reliable employee.
Mr. McCumesky, a senior representative of the United Road Transport Union, who knows all about Mr. Law, has protested about Mr. Law's activities to Mr. Urwin, to Mr. Jack Jones, to Mr. Woodcock, and even to Mr. Feather, but he has got nowhere. He says that out of 100 lorry drivers, 60 are for ever Alan Law, and 40 will lose their jobs. That is the gain to the union.
The Government have employed Mr. Jack Scamp on one trouble that arose, but at the end of the day he found himself quite ineffective. A lot of sugar talk and reconciliation went on and the strike ended. But this does not worry Mr. Law. He simply moves on to a new activity.
It is interesting to read Mr. Jack Scamp's report. At one stage Mr. Law did not even turn up to give evidence and he could not be found. His stock in trade is the excessive tolerance and good will of both sides of industry, the bosses of his union, the Government and, as I said earlier, the reversal of the Rookes v. Barnard legislation.
One would think that the employers, the employees, the newspapers, the B.B.C. or could do something about such an exceptional case if what I have described is true. But Mr. Law is really quite smart and seems to defeat them all. He either is not available or does not want to explain, so we cannot get the complete story of why he does what he does. I suppose that some of the newspapers, the B.B.C. and I.T.V. may be in fear of libel actions.
If what I have described is as serious as I say—which really amounts to blackmail—why do we not get more information? One newspaper has been bold enough to publish on its front page four or live examples, but many people and the newspaper reporters know that we cannot get anything like the full amount of information on the activities of Mr. Law.
The employers do not want to know, because they can keep going as long 1084 as they keep Mr. Law happy. The employees do not want to know. Otherwise, they may lose their jobs. Nobody wants to disclose just how deep this goes.
I have spoken on the telephone to one or two employers whose names have been given to me by employees, but they have said, "Please leave me out of this, old chap. I have nothing more to say." This is what they tell the newspaper reporters, too.
One reporter in Birmingham assured me that he saw Mr. Law and invited him to make some comment, but he was as good as thrown out of his office. Mr. Law always says, "I do not want to explain. This is my business and not yours."
If the Government's agreement with the Trades Union Congress means anything, they must surely realise that this type of man has to be taken out of this sort of job by somebody. It is not in the interests of the country; it is certainly not in the interests of exports. We have had enough stoppages to damage the output of the Midlands. The Government might well wish to have as much peace in industry as possible. I hope that they will get some co-operation from the union itself or from the T.U.C. to help them get over this problem.
I do not think that inquiries will do anything concerning Mr. Law. We really all know the facts. I know that the Government have a lot of information. I have sent them information. The hon. Member for Northfield has sent them information, and, no doubt, Mr. Jack Scamp has told them what he thinks about it. They have had letters from other people. If they can possibly do anything, it may be only through their influence with the top officials of the unions. If I can help in any way, I shall be pleased to do so.
It seems to me, however, that only by the protection that hon. Members have in this House can we really tell the truth about Mr. Law. Nobody wants to give the whole story. I certainly have not the time tonight to give the other 20 or 30 cases which have come to my knowledge, but I can hand details of them to the Government if that would be of help.
§ 12.37 a.m.
§ Mr. John Ellis (Bristol, North-West)I am a member of the Transport and 1085 General Workers' Union, and, indeed, a sponsored Member. In so far as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) was quite specific in wishing to withdraw any responsibility from the Transport and General Workers' Union, I say to him that the man in question is an officer of that union and, to that extent, the union must have a responsibility.
I have spoken today to Harry Urwin, the regional secretary, who will shortly be the assistant general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, who was a senior officer at the time and, therefore, has a measure of responsibility also. I have his authority to say to the hon. Member that the union will be prepared to meet the hon. Member wherever he wishes to debate this issue in public with him.
Of course, I knew nothing in detail about the charges to which the hon. Member has tonight referred. I have certainly read things in the Press, some of them very detailed, but largely a lot of innuendoes. I merely say to the hon. Member that in this House we have privilege to say anything we like. A man outside, whom the hon. Member names as Mills and describes as a storm-trooper, has been drawn into it. Terms like that have been used.
If the hon. Member has this information, he should now make these statements outside this Chamber, where he will not be protected by privilege. He should adduce the facts, because there is redress at law for people who could have done the things that he alleges they have done. The hon. Member has used language like "extorting money", "blackmail" and "sabotage". All those words have been used.
All I would say to the hon. Member, after using the privilege of this Chamber, is that, as he says that he has the evidence, let him make outside this Chamber the statements that he has made tonight. Then we shall perhaps get at the truth in one way or another without the cover of privilege. I ask the hon. Member to be a man and do just that.
§ 12.40 a.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker)The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) has 1086 exercised his right to raise on the Adjournment a matter which, although it relates to incidents within the area he represents, has an important national significance. He has done so in a way which I am sure seems right to him, but I must make it clear at once that I am unable to reply in the same terms.
To the hon. Gentleman the merits of the issue were already decided. He gave us an account of events based partly on reports made to him by companies in disputes involving Mr. Alan Law, and partly in articles in the Daily Mail and other newspapers. I do not in any way wish to contradict the evidence supplied to the hon. Gentleman or to the newspapers, but there are two things that need to be said.
The first is that the allegations about the industrial relations situation in the West Midlands private road haulage industry have yet to be objectively investigated, and I have noted that he said in reference to his own allegations, "if they be true". Obviously, he accepts that these allegations have yet to be fully substantiated by an objective inquiry. It may be that full inquiries would disclose a situation which is a great deal more complex than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
If the allegations are true, they are certainly uncharacteristic of normal union behaviour, and the whole trade union movement will wish to bring to an end any practice which is demonstrably out of line with normal union conduct.
Secondly, even if his account is not only an accurate picture but also the whole picture, I very much doubt if the situation will be improved by the sort of language that the hon. Gentleman has employed.
Let me, however, make it clear at once that the mere existence of allegations of the sort made by the hon. Gentleman and others is in itself a matter which the First Secretary believes requires urgent attention, and for that reason she welcomes the investigation which is already being carried out by the T.U.C. The T.U.C. is already acting, and has made requests for reports from the Transport and General Workers' Union and the United Road Transport Union, who have lodged a formal complaint with the T.U.C. I have today been in contact with 1087 the Acting General Secretary of the T.U.C. on this matter, and he has already convened a meeting between the officers of the unions concerned. The First Secretary has asked that the T.U.C. should make the results of its inquiries available to hear at the earliest opportunity, and I am glad to say that the T.U.C. has readily agreed to do so. In this, no doubt the T.U.C. will readily receive the support of the hon. Gentleman who has asked for such a step in the form of a Motion which demanded such a procedure.
While these inquiries are proceeding I suggest it would be inappropriate, indeed perhaps improper, for me to comment in detail on the allegations that have been made. But it is not out of place for me to say something about them in general terms. Four main allegations have been made against this union officer, either during this Adjournment debate or in the newspapers.
The first is that he is party to behaviour which is, by any standards, illegal—immobilisation of company vehicles, and so on. If this is true, the remedy lies in legal action by the offended companies.
Secondly, there is the allegation of intimidation of union members and potential members—as in the previous allegation, behaviour which, if it exists, is certainly not typical of normal union conduct. It is the Government's view that powerful—properly powerful—trade unions should demonstrate to the nation that their powers are never used to the unjust disadvantage of individuals. Many unions, including the Transport and General Workers' Union, include in their rules appeals machinery against union decisions. The importance of that appeals machinery being easily available to members and used absolutely fairly cannot be overstated.
Perhaps I might draw attention to the White Paper on Industrial Relations, which proposes that, in addition to unions being required to have rules adequately covering procedures on this matter, when these procedures have been exhausted there should be a right of complaint to an independent review body.
The third allegation concerns the use of lightning strikes and other forms of constant and intemperate demands 1088 against individual companies. It hardly needs me to say that the Government believe that every industry should have proper negotiating machinery and adequate procedures which are honoured by both sides. Unfortunately, few companies in the private sector of the road haulage industry possess such procedures. The Road Haulage Wages Council deals with little more than minimum rates, hours, overtime, holidays and subsistence allowances. The Road Haulage National Negotiating Committee is a purely voluntary body which, following some initial success, has not found it easy to operate as arbiter of the many and diverse problems which this industry faces.
It is no coincidence that allegations of this sort arise in an industry composed of many small firms, where new firms are often established and old firms go quickly out of business. In their Report No. 94, the National Board for Prices and Incomes showed that, in 1963, 85 per cent. of all operators had five vehicles or fewer and that 50 per cent. had only one vehicle. The total number of operators then was 46,000. It is an industry in which there is reluctance on the part of companies to act together in any federation and where there is total and inadequate machinery for peaceful solving of disputes.
Of course, this does not imply that, in any situation, the Government sympathise with tactics which begin with industrial action rather than negotiation, and neither, of course, does the T.U.C. I hope that one certain outcome of its investigation into these allegations will be an attempt by the industry—an attempt which must be led by management—to work out proper procedure agreements.
The fourth allegation simply concerns the ferocity with which this officer of the T. & G.W.U. bargains—the allegation that, by strength of his bargaining tactics, he has so increased wages in the industry that firms on the margin of economic viability are forced out of business. Apart from the incomes policy implication, that allegation in itself is not one on which the Government can properly comment, even though related allegations are matters for proper concern. If, for instance, agreements are obtained by tactics which exceed the sort of peaceful picketing which has been 1089 for nearly 100 years a right in law, then the Government are properly concerned. If agreements have been reached by intemperate strikes rather than by proper discussion and negotiation, then the T.U.C. will be rightly concerned, but the simple accusation of tough negotiations to which, because of the peculiar economics of this industry, companies have chosen to acquiesce rather than to fight, is not a proper matter either for the T.U.C. or for us.
I repeat that my comments on the four allegations should in no way be taken either as support for what has been alleged or refutation of what has been suggested. They are simply the Government's general views on a situation about which much more needs to be known. I can only repeat that the T.U.C. is making urgent inquiries.
§ Mr. GurdenThose notes were typed before I made my speech. I made another allegation, which the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned, about the extortion of money. On his other point, about employers taking legal action against Mr. Law, I explained why this was impossible—they know that they will be closed down if they do so.
§ Mr. WalkerI hope that, in my general comments I am covering all the allegations, but the specific one, which the hon. Gentleman described as extortion, has been the trigger point, the complaint has been registered with the T.U.C. and I do not think that I should comment further until we know more about its inquiry.
I repeat that the T.U.C. is making urgent inquiries and when it has acted, as I have no doubt it will, in a general 1090 desire to establish the truth of this matter, and has made its findings known to the First Secretary, it is then, and only then, that she can decide what action, if any, is necessary.
Whatever the outcome however, there can be no doubt about the inadequacy of the negotiating procedures and the defects of collective bargaining machinery in the industry. I have already referred to the fragmented character of the industry, which contributes to this situation, and I have also referred to the responsibilities of management. Let me repeat, and emphasise, that the major initiative for reform must come from that source. I hope and expect that the action of the T.U.C. will be matched by an equal readiness on the part of the R.H.A. to respond to the needs of the situation. Certainly, some of the firms mentioned are in that membership.
The Report of the N.B.P.I., No. 94, dealt with productivity agreements in road haulage and examined some of the agreements entered into by firms in the West Midlands. It spotlighted some of the difficulties in the industry's present arrangements and made some useful and constructive suggestions. I hope that there will be early evidence of a speedy and positive response to those proposals and an effective use made of the proposed guide lines—
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at ten minutes to One o'clock.