HC Deb 17 November 1971 vol 826 cc421-4
Mr. Maurice Edelman (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the threat of a massive strike at Coventry now imminent.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr)

The Executive Council of the Engineering Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers yesterday endorsed its Coventry District Committee's call for a strike from Friday evening by some 7,000 Coventry tool room workers. This followed a ballot of the workers concerned in which 54 per cent. voted in favour of strike action.

The strike has been called in protest against the formal notice of termination of the Coventry Tool Room Agreement by the Coventry Engineering Employers' Association following unsuccessful discussions under the industry's national procedure.

Under the agreement the earnings of Coventry tool room workers have, since 1941, been related to the earnings of skilled production workers in the district.

I am seriously concerned about the effects on employment in Coventry and elsewhere of the proposed strike and I have arranged for both sides to meet my officers in separate discussions tomorrow.

Mr. Edelman

Is the Minister aware that his invitation to the parties concerned will be widely welcomed, above all in Coventry? Is he further aware that there is a general desire that a just settlement should be reached of a potentially disastrous situation involving at least 100,000 workers?

Mr. Carr

It is because, as I said, I am so concerned about the seriousness, and particularly the potential seriousness, of this dispute that I have asked both parties to come to see me so that I can be fully informed about the full facts of the situation and what may be done about it.

Mr. Heffer

We on this side of the House certainly welcome the fact that the conciliation machinery of the right hon. Gentleman's Department is going to be used in relation to this dispute, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why up to now there has been no question raised by the Government about the cancellation of this 30-year-old agreement by the employers? Is it true, as alleged by Mr. Andy Boyle, Coventry district secretary of the A.U.E.W., that the employers have been pressurised by the Government to cancel the agreement? Was there, as has been suggested, an inquiry by the Department into the agreement, and if there was an inquiry will the right hon. Gentleman publish the results of that inquiry? Is it not a fact that this industry has been strife free for many years, and that the toolmakers are the most highly-skilled workers and have been retained in their work because of this agreement? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in the circumstances, these men have been shabbily treated?

Mr. Carr

I am sure that it would be wrong for me to be drawn into any discussion about the merits of this case, and I do not intend to be so drawn. On matters of fact, it is not true that the employers have been pressurised by my Department into the action they have taken. It is not true. That is a matter of fact. It is true that my officers have had discussions with the employers in Coventry, just as officers of my Department had discussions with these and many other employers when the party opposite was in power. This is the normal practice—of the Ministry of Labour, as it was, with the Department of Employment as it now is—and it goes on year in and year out.

Mr. John Page

Would my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the number of jobs, outside those of the 7,000 union members concerned, which might be in jeopardy if this strike took place?

Mr. Carr

Judging by the experience of the last few weeks when there has been a strike on a Monday and a lockout on a Tuesday, it looks as if about 13,000 workers would be immediately affected, but my fear is that this number would probably escalate if the strike were to be a prolonged one and not simply a one-day one.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why his Departmental Officers in Coventry explained to the local Press this lunch time that in their hasty announcement about the withdrawal of unemployment benefit yesterday they made a mistake? Further to that, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the administration of the grading and class provisions of Section 22 of the National Insurance Act, 1965, may mean that members of unions not officially involved in this dispute may be debarred from benefits as from next Monday?

Mr. Carr

I think the hon. Member must realise that the question he is asking now is rather different from the Question to which I have replied, and I really think that I must have notice of such a detailed matter as that.

Mr. Orme

Is the Secretary of State aware that the President of the A.U.E.W., Mr. Hugh Scanlon, yesterday said "This is not a fight of our choosing"? Is it not a fact, which some of us find extraordinary, that here is an example of an employers' association arbitrarily cancelling an agreement without prior negotiation and yet receiving no word of condemnation from the Minister? If this had been the other way round the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend would have been condemning the trade union. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not have the courage to say that the employers are wrong on this issue?

Mr. Carr

I totally reject the hon. Member's allegation. I cannot help feeling that on this occasion, as on some previous occasions, he is more concerned with stirring up trouble than staying it. I have condemned no one in this, nor am I going to. The employers claim, as I said in my statement, that they went through the procedure, and this is among the facts which I seek to establish at the talks which I am having tomorrow.

Mr. Heffer

The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, said that there had been discussions between his Department and the Coventry employers. Of course, one understands that these discussions go on the whole time; but, in view of the seriousness of the situation which is developing, can the right hon. Gentleman tell this House—I think this House has a right to know—what was the nature of the actual discussions which took place between his Department and the employers?

Mr. Carr

Of course not.

An Hon. Member

Why?

Mr. Carr

Discussions which my officers have with employers or with unions in the normal course of their business have always been confidential and should always be confidential, otherwise these sorts of relationships, which are absolutely vital and always have been vital to the working of my Department, simply could not go on. What is happening now is no different from what has happened before under the previous Government, or Administrations of both parties before that.