HC Deb 12 April 1973 vol 854 cc1649-60

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon (Bootle)

I am grateful for the opportunity of raising an important matter affecting my constituents in the county borough of Bootle.

For two years there has been a strike affecting a Government building of some proportions in this town. It is a building worth, I believe, £10 million. It is one of the largest office blocks in Europe —a sort of Government-owned Centre Point. All of this has taken place in St. John's House, known locally as "the IRO"; it is the proposed Inland Revenue Office planned to deal with the income tax affairs of 3 million people.

The strike, which has lasted 158 weeks, is taking place against the background of 50,000 people who are unemployed on Merseyside. I am concerned about the effect on school leavers and on people who are over 55 who find it almost impossible to obtain work.

I wonder whether the conscience of the Joint Industry Board, the ETU and the 16 men who have been on strike is stricken because so many people are being kept out of work by an unnecessary and vicious strike. My constituents who are searching for work come to see their Member of Parliament, and they describe the strike as nothing short of a disgrace and a scandal. I have deplored the strike. I have asked questions of the Prime Minister, and I have been down to shop floor level to try to help in resolving it.

Where is the responsibility of the trade unions to its members? Do the trade unions look after their members only when they are not in trouble? In my 40 years' experience as a trade unionist I have known trade unions to look after their men in fair weather and foul, whether or not they agreed with them. Trade unions have a responsibility to ensure that agreements are kept. Too many trade unionists are ignoring agreements which have been properly made.

I have been in touch with the Joint Industry Board which has been set up for the ETU. Each time I am in touch with the board I become more pessimistic. I refrain from commenting on that organisation, save to say that I hope it will do more to resolve the difficulties which affect my constituents. I say to all the organisations I have mentioned—the trade union, the men on strike and the Joint Industry Board—that they have no right to pillory my unemployed constituents by continuing the strike. No strike is without solution, and this one causes bad industrial relations in parts of Merseyside.

Within a short distance of St. John's House we have built, on time or ahead of time, the Seaforth container base, St. Hugh's House, Magdalen House, Balliol House, Linacre House, St. Peter's House, St. Anne's House and St. Martin's House —which are all used by the Government —Daniel House, the wonderful Triad building and the New Strand.

Does not the Minister agree that planning and control of buildings from London often causes trouble? The buildings to which I have referred were not planned at long range but locally, with local contractors. Will the Minister bear in mind what can go wrong when there is a lack of proper consultation at local level?

In spite of all that the Minister has done, in spite of all that the Government have done, in spite of what the last Government did, and in spite of what Bootle council—one of the best and most progressive planning authorities in the country—has done, there has been a steady climb in the unemployment figures. In Bootle at present there are 4,124 people out of work, 3,550 men and 574 women. When I look at those figures, after a lifetime of trying to serve my people and after a lifetime living amongst them, I regret that that should be the case. We seem to be running like mad to stay in the same place all the time, and this strike is denying 3,500 jobs to my constituents, the equivalent almost of the total unemployment there. Good people who have served their country in peace and war, men of my years who want to work, are in many cases being denied the right to work. I want to try to arouse the consciences of the people who are concerned in the strike.

It has been said that there is some political motivation in the strike. If there is, I think the people of Bootle should know categorically. If people are causing disruption in industry for political purposes, as a life-long Labour man and as a trade unionist for 40 years I say that that should be made clear. I believe it is untrue. But if it is said by responsible people that there is some political motivation behind the delay in building a Government office, it should be made clear. In view of his personal responsibilities, I do not expect the Minister to answer that question directly, but he might bear in mind what I say. I believe that the strike has been about hours, wages and conditions. Most strikes are.

I want now to give details of the numbers of school leavers in my constituency and other areas of Merseyside in 1972, and then the unemployment figures for those under 18 years of age. In 1972 the number of school leavers in Bootle was 1,489, in Liverpool 5,359, and in Crosby, Litherland, Formby and Maghull, 1,380, making a total of 8,228. The unemployed under-18s numbered 241 in Bootle, 1,872 in Liverpool, and 140 in the other districts, 2,253 in all. Many of them could be absorbed into first-class Government work if the opportunity was provided.

The Inland Revenue came to Bootle six or seven years ago when St. Hugh's House was opened and accommodated the offices of the Inspector of Taxes dealing with London PAYE work and a Collector of Taxes concerned with the collection of London PAYE tax. Shortly afterwards, further Inland Revenue work was brought into the borough, and Magdalen House became the centre for the specialised branch of the Chief Inspector (Claims). So impressed were the Inland Revenue authorities that they decided that Bootle should be one of nine centres to deal with PAYE work, and the construction of St. John's House was begun —a £6 million to £10 million building— to deal with more than 3 million taxpayers in the North-West.

Then came the changes in the taxation system, with the Government getting rid of the old PAYE system and publishing their Green Paper giving details of the new tax credit scheme. As a result, we do not know what is happening, and I should like some categorical assurances about the present position.

It appears to me that for the past two years most Government Departments have not been unduly worried about the strike. I exclude the hon. Gentleman's Department from that criticism, because I know of the interest there. But it is my belief that the Inland Revenue would have been somewhat embarrassed if the building had been completed on time. We in Bootle want to know what is to be the future of the building. Will the Government take it? If they do, for what purpose will they use it? If they do not take it, shall we be left with a Barbican, a great mausoleum which will be a monument to the parlous state of industrial relations on Merseyside and in the country generally?

I have carried out some research. From what I have heard, both on and off the record, it is clear that the problems at St. John's House are the direct result of making these contractual arrangements at long range. It was said that when James Scott, the major electrical contractor, came on the scene there would be difficulty because it was already up to its neck in labour difficulties in Middlesbrough before coming to Merseyside. These matters should be looked at. The contractors are trying to find a way out.

The main contractor, the huge international McAlpine company, should have taken over from another contractor which backed out of the job. I refer to Tersons. I understand from the Liverpool grape vine that McAlpine is now seeking recourse to the Department of the Environment to try to back out of its contractual liability.

I recommend that, in order to reach a solution, we should get rid of McAlpine and Scott and start the job again with someone else so that it can be completed on time. This has been done in other parts of the country.

I believe that four parties are, or could be, responsible for this strike. It may be that the Government have not tried hard enough. By virtue of the courtesy and attention that I have received from the Minister over many months, I believe that he has tried. We have come near to success on one or two occasions. I believe that the Government, the Joint Industry Board, the ETU or the men themselves will have to solve this problem. In the last analysis I believe that it will be the men who will solve it. They are virtually in a worse position now than if they had gone back to work in 1971.

We are now in phase 2 of the freeze, and phase 3 has yet to come. Therefore, there can be very little by way of increased wages to help solve the men's problems. So I appeal to them on an old basis. They are not the only working class people to have made sacrifices for very little. They have made their case. I believe that if they return to work it would not be long before we could get some semblance of social justice into the matter. We could then ask the Government to send those 3,500 jobs to where they should be sent—Bootle. They are sending one office to Shipley and another to Cambuslang or Cumbernauld— I forget which place. Bootle is the obvious place for the Inland Revenue to send these new jobs.

There is only one office left to be placed. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to take notice of what I have said. I also appeal to the ETU, which I have known for many years—it has not been without its sorrows and tears, as its history will show—and to this new organisation, the Joint Industry Board, to show some new initiatives.

If I may talk to the men of Bootle from the House of Commons, I ask them to return to work not only for their own sake but for that of so many good people who are out of work. There is nothing more degrading or so bad for human dignity than for decent people who want work to be deprived of it. I believe that this strike is depriving my constituents of work. Therefore, I ask the Government to give me as much support as they can to end this long, vicious and unnecessary strike in Bootle.

10.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark)

The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) will understand if, when I sit down, some of the questions he has asked remain unanswered, and he will know why. Whoever may have behaved irresponsibly during the last few years, I certainly acquit the hon. Member of that, because he has been tireless in his pursuit of a solution to this problem which so much affects many of his constituents.

As the hon. Member is aware, and as he has shown tonight, the background to the dispute delaying the completion of the office at Bootle is both long and complicated. But, just as he has followed it with care and very proper concern for his constituents, so—he was good enough to acknowledge this—has my Department devoted considerable time and attention to the dispute. This must be said of the Department of the Environment too. We have provided advice wherever it has been sought and as often as we could.

As the hon. Member knows and has said, I have always been ready to talk to the official representatives of the parties involved and have during the course of the dispute met representatives, as the hon. Member has done, of the Electrical Contractors Association, the Joint Industry Board and Mr. Frank Chapple. My officials have also had numerous meetings, as the hon. Member knows, with the official representatives of the employers and the union. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also been closely involved with the problem and has met representatives of the same organisations together with the Electrical, Electronic and Telecommunication Union—Plumbing Trades Union on more than one occasion.

The hon. Member gave some of the history of this sad situation. The site at Bootle is a £5 million project for an office block for the Inland Revenue. It was planned to bring employment to the area, and everyone who knows the hon. Member's area and who has studied the area's figures will understand his deep desire to bring employment there. It was planned to bring employment to the area not only during its construction but when it was in operation.

The two-year main contract was let to Tersons on a firm price basis, and it started on 30th December 1968. Unfortunately, from the outset the project was beset by labour troubles, strikes, go-slows and so on. In August 1969 a decision was taken by Tersons' parent company to terminate its activities, and the contract as the hon. Member will know, was assigned to Sir Alfred McAlpine and Son Ltd. McAlpine tried to speed up the work by instituting double-shift working but this led to a strike and subsequent industrial action until mid-1971, since when major labour difficulties have been confined to the electrical subcontractors.

The contract should have been completed in December 1970, with the computer accommodation three months earlier, but at that date the project was only about 25 per cent. complete because of the low output arising from the labour situation on the site. The main contractors subsequently sought an extension of time on account of the exceptional labour troubles which they claimed to be beyond their control, and this was granted to some extent by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment.

Electricians employed by the two electrical sub-contractors first came out on unofficial strike on 11th February 1971 in support of a claim for wages in line with those paid to other workers on the site by McAlpine. The claim did not accord with the agreed rules of the Joint Industry Board for the Electrical Contracting Industry, on which the men's union is fully represented. The men refused to resume normal working and were subsequently dismissed.

I should explain—the hon. Member knows these facts well but they should be on the record—that the Joint Industry Board, which is the joint negotiating body for the industry, establishes a standard rate in the electrical contracting industry, and that additions to the rate by way of plus payments are not permitted in the industry except on large sites where special additional payments have been agreed under a JIB determination procedure, about which I shall have more to say later.

In this dispute there were a total of 17 electricians on unofficial strike, although two of these returned to work for a period before the site was finally closed. I understand that those on strike have been supported by collections, mainly from workers on other sites, and pickets are still on duty at the site. There were a number of occasions when attempts were made to put electricians recruited from other parts of the United Kingdom on the site but they were stopped on each occasion by pickets. It was also reported that men who tried to work on the site were threatened. Eventually, the electrical subcontractors gave up trying to put labour on the site, so all electrical installation ceased.

McAlpine continued to progress the work but, in the absence of electricians, it was not possible to take it beyond 68 per cent. completion. It began laying off the men from July 1972, and the last of them was paid off after Christmas. At present the site has been closed down by McAlpine except for security guards.

I should now like to return to the point which I mentioned earlier about the determination procedure of the Joint Industry Board for the award of additional payments on large sites. It is important that this procedure should be well understood because the fact that it was not adopted in the case of the IRO site at Bootle is one of the root causes of the fact that the dispute has been so long drawn out.

Determination No. 2 under the Joint Industry Board national working rules is described as A procedure for investigating cases where actions outside the control of the Electrical Contracting Industry have created serious problems for JIB members on particular sites Here I must weary the House with a rather long quotation. It goes on to say that The Electrical Contracting Industry has for many years pursued a policy which establishes realistic wages and conditions, nationally agreed, for its operatives and seeks to make progress in an orderly manner by national awards of wages and by improve ments in security and training, without local bargaining, and by insisting that the Industry's rules are observed. This policy of responsibility and orderly progress has great advantages, not only for those working within the Electrical Contracting Industry, but also to the community. As a result of this policy, the Client, the national interest and the taxpayer receive considerable protection from escalating costs. It is a policy which could well be emulated in other sectors of industry. Over the past few years, this responsible policy has come under increasing strain on individual sites where inflation of wage rates amongst other trades, for reasons totally unconnected with productivity or any other criteria, has placed the more responsible JIB Graded operative at a disadvantage. It is important that this should be on the record, as I think that we agree that this has been involved in the root cause of what has happened.

It goes on to say: The JIB is now prepared to examine cases where factual information is available to show that JIB wage levels on a particular site are out of line wtih those paid to other trades. In examining such cases, the JIB will determine the appropriate rate of pay for JIB Graded operatives on the site and will attach whatever conditions it thinks fit to the payment of this rate. This Determination constitutes a temporary expedient only to meet the exceptional conditions pertaining at the present time. If, and when, industrial relations and wage rates become more rational amongst other trades then this Determination will be discontinued. At all times, the JIB will insist upon the highest standards of efficiency and the highest standards of responsibility being maintained by its members. In no circumstances will it investigate a case in response to unconstitutional action. It is important that I should have given that information to the House.

The specific procedure for applications for a site award is also carefully laid down by the Joint Industry Board. Conditions have to be met before an application is entertained, and before an award is made a thorough investigation is carried out.

The JIB Wages Committee, set up following a report on the wages structure by a JIB working party, which recommended that the JIB should depart from its strict enforcement of standard rates and allow site payments to be made to electricians on sites where other craftsmen received high earnings, has made about 10 "determinations", including one for a large Liverpool building site. Large sums have been awarded in almost every case, usually £2–£5 per day, and it can be assumed that the Bootle electricians would have qualified for similar sums if they had returned to work and thus enabled the correct procedure to be carried out.

Last June the hon. Gentleman was good enough to come to see me and explain the situation as it then appeared to him. He said that there appeared to be only two possible solutions for ending the strike—either the replacement of the electrical subcontractors or the award of a determination by the JIB prior to or immediately on return to work of the electricians on strike. I explained to him at the time that the first course could involve Government intervention in a contract and that the alternative solution would entail the JIB's abandoning its principles for awarding determinations. Neither solution, therefore, appeared attractive. It is not for me to urge a joint negotiating body to renegotiate its agreements because they are opposed by a small group of dissidents. I see no reason for going back on what I said to the hon. Member at the time.

Also in June 1972, with the wider interests of his constituents in mind, the hon. Gentleman made prodigious efforts, for which I pay him due credit, to persuade the unofficial strikers to return to work so that the correct JIB procedure for consideration of a site award could be adopted. This has always been the sensible, and indeed only, solution. His efforts were partially successful in that two electricians employed by one of the two electrical contractors returned to work for a period.

As a result of this action, it was hoped that the remainder of the electricians would return to work so that the JIB would be in a position to reconsider the men's demand for a site award. However, although the JIB committee investigated the application, an award was deferred to allow the return to work of the 15 other electricians. Regrettably, the electricians did not return, and the JlB was not therefore in a position to deal with the claim before 6th November 1972, when the incomes standstill prevented any further increase in wages.

Since last autumn the Department has held a number of meetings, and there has been a good deal of correspondence on the subject of the site. The hon. Gentleman will also recall that in December I urged the electricians to return to work—in response to a Question by the hon. Gentleman, I think. We have always been mindful of the fact that the dispute was one which, for a lasting solution, needed to be settled by the parties concerned. The procedures for settling the dispute are well-established, and recourse to them has always seemed to be entirely appropriate in the case of the IRO site at Bootle. The procedures are available in such a situation through the industry's own properly agreed constitutional processes.

The situation now is, unfortunately, that the site has for all intents and purposes been closed because no more work can take place, and this has led the main contractor to claim frustration of contract. That matter is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I cannot comment on it tonight. It may be a matter for the courts.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern in the dispute, which I share. We can all understand his regret that work on the site has now stopped following the activity of a handful of men who have failed to follow agreed means of resolving disputes of this kind and the instructions of their own union.

I agree with at least one of the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. He is properly concerned with the employment of his constituents, and mentioned school leavers and some of the older men. We share his concern, and I can only hope that what the hon. Gentleman said touches consciences far beyond this House.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.