HC Deb 13 June 1973 vol 857 cc1484-9
Sir Harmar Nicholls (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Perkins Diesel dispute in Peterborough.

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

Production workers at the company have been imposing a ban on overtime working and other sanctions since 5th April in support of a claim for parity with workers at the parent company, Massey Ferguson in Coventry. This could amount to increases of between £15 and £20 a week for the highest-paid workers.

The overtime ban prevented necessary maintenance work being undertaken each week end and led to the lay-off each Monday of between 2,000 and 5,000 production workers. The company claim that industrial action has reduced output by 70 per cent.

In the current wage negotiations, the company has offered increases averaging £2.09 a week and an additional four days' holiday over the next two years. I understand that this offer would be likely to be acceptable to the union concerned providing that the company were prepared to commit itself in principle to parity of earnings in the longer term. For its part, although the company is willing to enter into discussions on the parity issue, it is not at present prepared to do this.

On 7th June the company announced that the loss of production was such that it would have no alternative but to cease production at the plant from the end of the day-shift today unless there was a return to normal working. Negotiations with national officials of the trade unions concerned followed earlier this week but agreement was not, I understand, found possible.

I understand that at a mass meeting of the workers at the company this morning a vote was taken to continue action in support for the claim for parity. Production will therefore halt later today.

My Department is continuing to keep closely in touch with the situation and its conciliation facilities are of course available at any time.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I well understand why the Secretary of State could not make that statement himself. He is closeted with the TUC and talking about national matters. I only hope that he is taking an opportunity there to discuss the importance of this breakdown in industrial work in Peterborough.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for making this statement, particularly in the light of the tragedy that occurred in his constituency last night.

But this is a real tragedy for my constituents, too. This has gone on for 10 weeks. At the end of the day, whether the unions benefit or the management benefits, whatever happens, it will be my constituents in Peterborough who will suffer, the families and people in business. More than that, the reputation of Peterborough could suffer. If a city gets the reputation of being a rogue city for industrial relations at a time when, under the new towns procedure, it is becoming a centre for industrial development, it may well be a tragedy, and one which we could have foreseen—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are usually very concerned when their constituents go on strike or are unemployed and lose income because of certain circumstances and I claim the right to speak for my constituents.

Has the question of parity been clearly defined? What is meant by it? It is a word that can mean all sorts of things. Have either the unions or the management defined the word "parity" in the sense of this tragedy in Peterborough? While I accept my hon. Friend's point that his conciliation officers are ready to play their part, I should like an assurance that they are prepared to offer conciliation without waiting to be invited. If this matter is allowed to fester into something bringing about the downfall of Peterborough as an industrial centre, it will be a tragedy that affects the nation, and not just my constituents.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remark about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and for his references to the tragic situation which arose in my constituency yesterday.

I recognise the consequences for my hon. Friend's constituents. The whole House will sympathise with them and will recognise the seriousness of the situation. My hon. Friend talked about the claim for parity and whether that had been precisely defined. As I understand it, one difficulty is that a payment-by-results system operates at the Massey Ferguson plant, whereas employees at Peterborough are on measured-day work. That is the answer to that question.

I was asked about the conciliation officers. In fact, officers of the Department have been in touch with both sides in this dispute since it began on 5th April, and they will continue to look for any opportunity which is brought forward by one side or the other which might lead to a helpful solution to the problem.

Mr. Prentice

To clarify the question of parity, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the facts are that for the measured-day work at Peterborough men have been getting an average wage of about £33 or £34 a week, whereas in negotiations to go over to a similar system in Coventry an offer has recently been made to the workers, doing similar work for the same company, of £54 a week, so that the gap of £20 a week is bound to cause a deep-seated sense of grievance?

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about his Department keeping in touch. I hope that this will include a positive offer to mediate between the two sides if and when this seems helpful in the next few days.

On a broader point, in the motor industry and related operations we are going through a very difficult period, unusually difficult even for this industry. But is there not a marked contrast between the kind of approach associated at present with British Leyland, which has been holding detailed talks with the unions and making efforts to solve problems at Cowley, Swindon and elsewhere in recent days, and the element of confrontation which has crept into the two cases that we have been discussing this week, the Chrysler company and Massey Ferguson?

Will the hon. Gentleman take note that we shall expect, if this continues, some clear definition of the Government's attitude towards this matter? Which approach do they endorse? If they fail to condemn the confrontation approach, will not this confirm the suspicion in the minds of many people that the Government want confrontation and have not learned the lessons of the blunders of the last three years?

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I utterly refute any suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the Government wanting confrontation. That is absurd, and that is recognised on both sides of the House. I am grateful for some of the other things that he said.

Average earnings are between £41 and £42 a week. The current offer would provide earnings in the range £38 to £48 a week. That is the position. It would not be wise, in view of the discussions that took place in the House on Monday, for me to be drawn into the wider aspects of disputes in the motor industry, but my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that in certain circumstances his mind was not closed to a wider inquiry.

Concerning the part of the Department's conciliation officers in this matter, their services will be available at any time.

Sir D. Renton

Since some hundreds of my constituents work at Perkins Diesel and have done for many years, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that this firm, like other engineering firms in Peterborough and north Huntingdonshire has, until this unfortunate dispute, had a fine record of industrial relations? Is he aware that the last thing that anyone wants or is seeking, as far as I know, is the confrontation to which the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred? Is he further aware that Perkins Diesel has a worldwide reputation for the high quality of its goods, in which it was a world pioneer, and that it has a great potential for contributing further to our export trade? Will the Secretary of State for Employment do all that he can to help both parties to reconcile their difficulties?

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I think that I can subscribe to everything said by my right hon. and learned Friend. That is what makes me so anxious to see an end to the dispute.

Mr. John Mendelson

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of suppliers to this firm who would be seriously affected if production were to cease? While the serious position for the people of Peterborough will be recognised on all sides, does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are other hon. Members representing the interests of those other suppliers? May I put two questions? First, would this not be the right time for the senior conciliation officers of his Department to go beyond the stage of keeping their services available and instead take a fresh initiative, approaching the two sides to get them together to have further talks? Secondly, although I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be drawn further than the exchanges on Monday, may I ask whether it is not true that where a foreign firm has acquired certain property rights in this country with the help of successive Governments, there is a residual right on the part of the Government to make an approach to the employers and call their attention to their duties to the people?

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern for suppliers connected with this company, and I share it. It merely underlines the seriousness of the situation which no one is attempting to conceal. As for calling the parties together or holding an inquiry, while that may have presentational attractions for some, I am not sure that it is the best way of going about it. It is doubtful whether it would be an appropriate or useful way of trying to reach a solution. The company has already offered to participate in a joint working party on the parity issue and to have it chaired by a third party. This offer was not accepted.