MOTOR INDUSTRY

HC Deb 25 June 1973 vol 858 cc1136-206

3.32 p.m.

Mr. William Price (Rugby)

I beg to move, That this House notes with concern the growing conflict in the motor industry, particularly at Chrysler plants; and urges the Government to set up a full and independent inquiry into labour relations throughout that industry. I must admit that I am not too well disposed at the moment towards the motor industry. My car blew up on the M1 and had it not been for a kindly lorry driver I could not have arrived here in time for the House to have had a debate. However, having made it on time, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the debate, which comes at a time when we have seen some of the most bitter conflict in the motor industry during the past quarter of a century. There is every indication that the position will get worse.

Perhaps I should declare my interest. I represent thousands of people who are dependent upon the car industry. As the now-famous Chrysler car plant at Ryton on Dunsmore is in my constituency, I shall naturally wish to say a few helpful words about the dispute at that plant. It would be simple and I admit it is tempting to seek to beat the day lights out of management not only at the Chrysler plant but throughout industry. However, I do not believe that would be a particularly productive exercise.

My experience of the industry leads me to the conclusion that over many years there have been problems on both sides. It has never been my case, or the case of shop stewards and full-time union officials, that on all occasions have the people whom I represent been 100 per cent. pure-hearted. There have been mistakes and there have been occasions on which the car workers have played it extremely hard. There have been incidents which I found difficult to justify, but I believe that such things are inevitable. The motor industry as we know it is still a recent development. It is a volatile, difficult and emotional industry which is operated on tight schedules—so many cars per hour come what may; quantity rather than quality. It is, by any standards, an explosive situation.

I ask the House to consider a simple question. Why is it that car workers, who are among the best-paid men in the land, should be involved in so many disputes which often land themselves and their families in dire financial difficulties? There has been a tendency to create the image of the greedy, idle, shoddy and over-paid car worker, who is ready to strike with the least possible cause. Car workers are presented as bloody-minded individuals helped along by bone-headed, militant shop stewards. That is all good Daily Telegraph stuff. That is an argument and a description which I am not prepared to accept. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That does not alter the fact that it would be foolish to pretend otherwise than that we have had our fair share of industrial trouble. In 1969, 1,632,000 days were lost. In 1970, 1,105,000 days were lost. In 1971, 3,100,000 days were lost and in 1972 the days lost were 1,363,000. It has been estimated that in 1972 the manufacturers lost approximately 250,000 vehicles. That is about one-eighth of their production. That again, by any standards, is not a happy record.

We are entitled to ask why. Perhaps the saddest comment came from a Ford worker who was quoted in the recent book by How Benyon. He said: It's strange this place. It's got no really good points. It's just convenient. It's got no interest. You couldn't take the job home. There's nothing to take. You just forget it. It's different for them in the office. They're part of Fords. We're not—we're numbers. Benyon wrote: To stand there and look at the endless, perpetual tedium of it all is to be threatened by the overwhelming insanity of it—the sheer audacious madness of a system based upon men like those wishing their lives away. That is what we should be considering. The situation has its funny side. They tell a very old story in the Halewood plant of the man who left the track to work in a sweet factory. His job was to sort the red candy from the blue. After a month he handed in his notice. The boss asked him why he had done so. The man replied: Because I couldn't stand taking all those decisions. That is the mentality of the car track. Men have been turned into robots. Skill has been sacrificed for mass production. I accept that if the man working in the sweet factory had been a Liverpudlian he would have come up with a better crack. The fact is that the men have no part in management or decision-making. Any interest in the job has been destroyed by the sheer monotony of the track. Can anyone wonder why we have trouble?

The position was summed up by Mr. George Cattell, the former managing director of Chrysler. In a recent letter to The Times he wrote: Men were engaged on repetitive operations with a 1.6 minute cycle for eight hours a day, five days a week, with little interest in what they were doing and little prospect of change. I know from experience that the very monotony gave rise to unreasonable and uncooperative attitudes. We can also take opinions from the factory floor. One of the shop stewards at Ryton was quoted in The Guardian as saying: Young lads are brought in, given a welding gun and told to get on with it. A few steps, a few stabs with the gun … a few steps, a few stabs with the gun … all day long. The line mustn't stop, whatever happens. Let us consider a quotation from a work study document produced for British Leylands Triumph plant at Coventry, which says: Both hands should not be idle at rest periods … hands should work in curves, not in sharp movements … hands should be removed from all work which could be done by other parts of the body. If anyone can tell me what that is supposed to mean, I would be grateful. We have, on the one hand, the boredom, the dirt, the noise and the monotony. On the other hand, we have the genuine fears of men working in an industry which has been subjected to more booms and slumps than any other industry in Britain. One just does not build good industrial relations out of uncertainties, and these fears are well founded.

The men see the growth of multinational companies answerable to no one. They believe that they can be at any time the victims of centralisations and mergers. Perhaps most important of all, they dread getting old on a car track. It was for the later reason that Ford workers recently meeting in Cologne demanded a guarantee that wages from the age of 50 until retirement should not be reduced.

What is frightening these men—and it is a major factor in the psychology of the car track—is that if one substitutes stamina for skill, which is what is done, then the man in his late forties and fifties will have to be taken off the line because he can no longer keep up with the young men and the only alternative for him is lower-paid employment. There are many other problems, such as change from piece work to day work, frequent arguments about status, desire to maintain the differential, the demands between factories for parity, and so on.

On top of all that, we have the problem of management. I must say something here. The Americans, with their strange methods, have done little to produce industrial peace. They are accustomed to long, expensive, disastrous disputes, and there seems to be evidence to suggest that they would be happy with a similar set-up here. There is all too often no consultation, no liaison, no cooperation—absolutely nothing between management and workers. Top management does not know what is going on; middle and lower management is frequently ill-trained, ill-equipped and occasionally ill-intentioned. I know car bosses who operate with a secrecy that would make a group of Trappist monks by comparison wonder where the leaks were coming from.

I threatened to deal with the Ryton dispute and I shall do so, despite the fact that it was settled on Saturday. I believe that it has been a classic of its kind and an object lesson in how to allow a minor matter—which was all it was, for it was really a non-starter from the beginning—to escalate into open and bitter conflict.

The facts are well known. The company claimed that hundreds of men were deliberately turning out shoddy work and it stopped 90 minutes' pay. Mr. Gilbert Hunt, the managing director at the time and now elevated to the chairmanship—that is the result of success—attacked his work people and issued a variety of threats. I want to say this about him, although one or two of my colleagues may not agree with me. I have known Gilbert Hunt a long time and I do not believe that he is a reactionary employer. I think that it is right that I should say that that is the position as I see it.

But I must say that Mr. Hunt approached this problem with all the tact and delicacy that one would expect to find in a herd of over-sexed bull elephants. He went in fighting and it is little wonder that in the last two weeks he has become known as "Sheriff Hunt of Dodge City." That is the position now at Ryton. It is in this sort of atmosphere that the men have gone back.

It was an odd allegation to make. Can one imagine it? Everyone in that shop apparently on one specific day and at the same time on that specific day was overcome by a burning desire to sabotage his own company. It not that strange? It would be a miracle if it happened. Mr. Hunt was not selective. All stood equally condemned.

The unions for their part claimed that, following a dispute at Linwood, parts were in short supply, that the management ordered defective components to be sent down the track to keep cars coming off, and that this was why shoddy cars were emerging. My inquiries have led me to believe that the unions were right. It was said that the management preferred to keep the car track running, even if it produced shoddy cars, and to bring those cars back for putting right later on, than to produce good cars at the beginning.

That is a fact. The scene was therefore set for a wild and vicious conflict and we all know what happened. What is not general knowledge is the events leading up to the stoppage and it is right that I should explain them, although briefly.

On 20th February, full-time union officials met senior management, and both sides recognised that there had been a deterioration at Ryton. The management accepted the unions' offer to carry out a full investigation. So far so good. Four union officials spent three days interviewing shop stewards and then submitted to the company a list of complaints and problems, incredibly covering six closely typed pages. The company replied with a 16-page document. I have both in my possession should anyone want to see them. They are quite remarkable. There were three further meetings between management and unions and there seemed to be broad agreement that there had been a marked improvement in relations at the factory. A great deal of work had been put in and it was paying off.

Then, out of nothing, came the row. In 14 years in the Coventry area, I have never known any dispute, provoked by either side, that brought such outright condemnation of one side or the other. It was clear that the management had decided on a conflict, whatever the cost. Mr. Hunt came thrashing out of the red corner and what was astonishing about his outburst was that it came only a few days after Mr. P. L. Griffiths, the director of industrial relations, had written to every man employed at Ryton. The House may be interested to know what he said: In April 12,560 Avengers were produced, the second highest April vehicle production figure recorded. The highest was 12,686 in April, 1971. I want you to know that all your efforts are very much appreciated. How strange! What a curious situation—the industrial relations director thanking the men for their gallant and noble efforts and the managing director threatening to withhold all future investment! How odd! It is apparent that not only did senior managers fail to talk to the workers, but they did not have much to do with each other either. It is clear that on that occasion one did not know what the other was doing. So the dispute was on.

Union officials offered a compromise—that is, they would recommend an immediate return to work and would carry out a full investigation into allegations of shoddy work. There was a specific promise that anyone found guilty would be disciplined by their fellow-workers—and again in the car industry there is a long history of that being done.

The management, after an adjournment of one and a half hours, said, "No". Union officials who had worked hard to end the dispute were left in no doubt that they were not required. "Comrades", senior management said to each other, "We are going to have a full-scale public row". And so it was.

In recent times this House has spent a good deal of time discussing picketing and, in particular, violence. I want to explain how violence came to be used on people who were engaged in peaceful and lawful picketing at Chrysler's Stoke plant at Coventry.

Some very dubious characters were employed by the company for a large sum of money to get new engines out of Stoke and down to Dunstable. Those drivers—their pockets stuffed full of Chrysler blood money—drove large vehicles in the middle of the night at considerable speeds out of the factory. Violence was threatened on a wide scale and at least one serious assault was committed. The cowboys from London had achieved a remarkable success. It takes a brave man to drive a massive vehicle through a peaceful picket line at 40 miles an hour. They had earned their money and no doubt the company would have been proud of them—except for the fact that it went wrong.

The lorries were driven to a quiet village near my constituency and the containers parked in a secluded field, unfortunately the wrong one. It had recently been reclaimed. The containers sank slowly in the earth, one turned over—Hallelujah! Gilbert Hunt's brand new engines everywhere.

Chryslers wasted no time when it heard what had happened. This was four o'clock in the morning. It hired another firm to get to the field as quickly as possible to remove the evidence before the Press, radio and television got to the scene. It was hard luck from Chrysler's point of view that the men who turned up were members of the Transport and General Workers Union and refused to move anything. What we saw that night was pure Keystone Cops comedy. On Saturday in the popular Press these rag-and-bone men involved in picket-breaking were boasting of a "superb victory". That is a great one. Have a look at their "superb victory". Apart from dumping the engines in the shifting sands of Ryton-on-Dunsmore they had involved themselves in a major police inquiry with every possibility of criminal charges being brought, they had brought the company some of the worst publicity it had ever had and when they got to Dunstable they nearly killed a security guard when they drove in through the gates. If that is a superb victory God help them if they ever get involved in a failure.

I have related that story for one reason. Only a few hours earlier, before Chryslers sent those men in, union officials agreed to meet management for secret talks in defiance of many of the people on strike. This is something else that often happens in the motor industry. Trade union officials and shop stewards often do things that are very unpopular with people on strike. That was a decision that was not widely welcomed but the talks took place. What did they get for their trouble? They were kicked in the teeth by the people with whom they were trying to deal.

I have mentioned the fact that practically everyone I have spoken to holds the view that Chryslers set out on a course which was certain to create a major strike. I cannot understand why the company wanted to tell the world that it was turning out shoddy cars and then handled the affair in a way which brought the most widespread criticism.

Everyone got into the act, even the television critic of the Coventry Evening Telegraph. He wrote: What, I feel impelled to ask, is the Chrysler management afraid of? They won't talk to the Evening Telegraph, they won't talk to television, least of all they won't to Messrs. Fox and Byrne. They are convenors at the plant. I now understand from my contacts inside the firm that Chryslers is developing a persecution complex. It has a curious idea that Fleet Street and the police have ganged up on the side of the strikers. I have waited a long time for that happy spectacle. If that is so, we might well take the view that we are really on our way.

There are hard lessons to be learned from this dispute and that is why I have dealt with it at length, to the exclusion of other and current stoppages. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to deal with those troubles. What I suggest to the Minister is that it seems to be a crazy negation of departmental responsibility to stand idly by and let a strike of this nature become a national issue which will not be forgotten for a long time to come. That is taking non-intervention to criminal lengths.

I come now to the wording of my motion. In answers to the House two weeks ago the Secretary of State said that he might set up some form of inquiry into labour relations in the motor industry. I suspect that he has one in mind to be conducted by the Commission on Industrial Relations. That will not do. Some of us do not regard that body as an instrument of peace. What I suggest is that the Minister goes away from this debate and rings up Sir Jack Stamp, apologises for the abusive behaviour of the Prime Minister after the local government dispute had been settled and asks him if he will conduct a full and independent inquiry into labour relations in the motor industry.

I believe that any inquiry should be closely associated with the scheme announced by the Secretary of State which it is hoped will help provide some of the answers to boredom in industry and commerce. The decision has come perhaps 10 years too late but we cannot entirely blame the right hon. Gentleman for that. It is one that of all us with any connection with the motor industry should welcome. If nothing is done our problems in the motor industry will only get worse. I am bound to tell the Minister that I think we are heading for the sort of trouble that the Americans have been encountering in their advanced car plans.

This is what the Financial Times had to say about a plant built at Lordstown, Ohio to attract redundant steelworkers: Accusations of vandalism and sabotage, the deliberate ripping of seats and smashing of dashboards, have been levelled at the workers and General Motors have changed the management. The trouble in these motor plants seems to be a sign of general malaise in the industry. Some leaders wonder quite seriously whether Europe and the US will still be suitable places for motor manufacturing in the late 1980s or whether plants will not have been shifted to areas like Japan, Brazil and Spain where the memory of poverty is still sufficiently real to outweigh the tedium of the assembly line. The motor industry is probably the most important private sector of the economy. What happens to it during the next 20 years will have a major impact on all our people, whether or not they work in the industry. Its well-being is vital to the country. It is no good the Government sitting on the sidelines, presumably offering up quiet prayer for peace and tranquility, living in the hope that something will turn up. It will not do.

I am certain that my car workers, led by some of the most responsible full-time officials in the land, want a full week's pay and are prepared to give a full week's work for it. They want peace and with good will on all sides it can be achieved.

3.58 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) moved his motion in general terms, and I thought that his opening words when he dealt with the economy and the psychological problems involved in this industry were words which will need to be pondered after the debate. That part of his speech justified his tabling the motion. I was sorry that he strayed from objectivity in the middle of his speech. It was a bit unfair that once the Chrysler dispute was over he should have dragged in, in a rather biased and prejudiced way, all sorts of evidence which is emotive and attractive to the headlines but not necessary fact. While he was taking that particular line I wondered what the reaction would be on the Labour benches if someone had traduced the union side in the same terms immediately after an important and crippling dispute had ended. It was unwise, and out of keeping with the spirit behind the motion and the first part of his speech.

When one has a dispute in one's constituency, it concentrates one's mind considerably. In my constituency there is the Perkins Diesel Group shut-down, and while the dispute is still on one wants to be as objective and helpful as possible. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is in the happy position of being able to move his motion with the Chrysler dispute—which obviously inspired it—having been settled. I wish that the Peterborough dispute was settled too.

The hon. Gentleman said that he could not understand why there were so many disputes in the motor car industry. I share that puzzlement, particularly in relation to the Perkins Diesel shut-down in Peterborough. In that firm industrial relations have been of the highest and best for years and the wage levels are higher than those applying anywhere else in the district—indeed they are so high that they have been of some embarrassment to me over the years. Farmers have said to me that the Perkins rate attracted workers from the farms, and other industries in the area have complained that they could not possibly compete with those wage levels. I have been asked whether anything could be done to stop Perkins cornering all the skilled labour so that the other firms would be able to carry on.

In a situation where the general industrial relations have been superb and where the relative wage levels have been very attractive I cannot understand why there has to be a shut-down so that all the output is lost.

The firm has been of vital importance not only to Peterborough and the people it employs but to the country. It is one of our great exporting companies which on two occasions has won the Queen's Award. It has a high reputation because of the great contribution it makes to the economic strength of the country.

On the facts confined to the Peterborough factory new terms have been agreed—a 6.9 per cent. increase in the basic rate, extra holiday days and equality for female workers. The improvement that has been agreed, looking only at the conditions existing in that factory, represent at least 7 per cent. increase, which is within the terms laid down by the Government.

What seems to give rise to the difference is a new word, the "in" word. That new word is "parity". I warn industries that the new word "parity" will be the basis of many claims which have no relation to the day-to-day problems of particular factories in particular areas. I beg those on the negotiating side for the unions who may want to use this emotive, attractive word to be careful that it does not boomerang. I ask everyone to let words have their true meanings.

As I understand "parity" it means equality with identical things. If the workers in Peterborough were asking for parity with the workers in Coventry and if the work being done in Coventry were identical to that being done in Peterborough, I could understand that there was, on the grounds of parity, a basis for talks on the meaning of the word. But the factory in Peterborough makes diesel engines—very fine ones. In Coventry the firm prefabricates the tractors in which the diesel engine goes. There is no identification with the work done and the product that comes from that work. All the two firms have in common is ownership. Massey-Ferguson is the owner of both the Coventry and the Peterborough plants. That is the only thing that the two plants have in common. The work that is done in each plant is quite different.

Equality of pay for identical work is right, but we should not go beyond that. I believe that detailed examination would show that to use "parity" as loosely as this is not in the interests of the employees or of management.

I am told that the difference between the wage levels of Peterborough and Coventry may be between £15 and £20 a week. On the face of it, if someone says to me "Why should I be between £15 and £20 worse off because I am working in a certain place?", I would have sympathy with him. If I were an engineer, my immediate reaction would be to feel that there should be some equalising. But that alone does not explain the position as it is here.

I have been able to make some sketchy investigations, without co-operation from either side. I was presumptuous enough to offer to be a mediator. I called myself the "honest broker interpreter". On many occasions the employees do not understand their own case and have no clear understanding of the management's answer. It is essential in disputes—and here I agree with the hon. Gentleman—that where people are no longer in work because of a shut-down they should, after they understand the full facts, have some say on whether or not they will go back to work or stay away. I should have liked to quiz both managers and conveners to find out what each case was and present it as objectively as possible. The employees could then have a secret ballot to decide whether the essential discussions should go on while they are still at work or during the shut-down.

I am told that it would not be far off the mark to say that the take-away money of the Peterborough workers last year was rather more than the take-away money of the Coventry workers.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport)

rose——

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I will give way in a moment.

Mr. Hughes

It is on this very point——

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I am making a constituency point. In a normal debate of general concern I am prepared to give way, but here 6,000 of my constituents are affected. I am concerned about their families and about the good name of Peterborough. If it gets known as a rogue city its future will be prejudiced. I am also concerned about the loss to the nation. On the amount of money taken home last year—I cannot state it as a fact, but it is not far off the mark——

Mr. Hughes

On this point that the hon. Gentleman is labouring——

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I have not laboured any point——

Mr. Hughes

rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Malialieu)

Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is not sitting down. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) must resume his seat.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

If the money taken home were based on the hours worked, the Peterborough workers would have had much more. The reason why the Coventry figures are as I have said is that because of stoppages and break-downs the actual amount of work done has meant that the amount of money taken home by the Coventry workers has been less than that taken home by the Peterborough workers. Perhaps different considerations apply in terms of hours worked, but it is worth bearing in mind that at the end of the day it is what the man takes home that counts.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Nonsense.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

We listen to a lot of extreme stuff from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I hope he will do me the courtesy to listen to my remarks.

On the difference in wages between Coventry and Peterborough, I wish to examine what would be the effect of an arrangement in this respect. Massey Ferguson's profits last year were in the region of £12 million. If that company were at once to grant a £15 to £20 increase in salary, that would eat up more than £6 million of the £12 million profit. If the company did that in Peterborough then it would have to have the same arrangement for its other workers at other plants; and if that happened it would mean that the £12 million profit would very likely be turned into a loss of nearly £1 million in that one year.

I want to set right the idea that a profit of £12 million means that that sum is being shared among a few shareholders. We all know—and Labour Members should give their testimony to this factor more often—that the figure of £12 million profit is the seed corn from which the company has to invest to make certain that there is future employment. If those profits are eaten by high wages or any other sort of expenses so that there are no profits left, then the future prospects for the industry and the area in which it is situated will be greatly affected.

There is a further point to be considered. I understand that the management has said, "We are prepared to look at the general question of equalising salaries in the various areas, but we can make no commitment in principle." I want to try to get the support of some Labour Members on this point. If equality is awarded, can they guarantee that there will not be leapfrogging by those who consider that they have lost their differential, and would this not mean a further wage inflation which would undermine the whole economic strength of this country?

I do not think they could give that guarantee, because on 29th May the union and management agreed terms which then led the union to recommend to shop convenors that the shutdown should end and that discussions should continue while the factory was at work. Unhappily, the shop convenors did not recommend that that should be done and the shutdown is still on. That was on 29th May but on 15th June the convenors at the Coventry plant advised the industrial relations manager that if there were any commitment in respect of Peterborough the workers at Coventry would expect a restoration of former differentials. Therefore, if one were to give parity by bringing Peterborough up to Coventry, there is a clear indication that differentials would be demanded and leapfrogging would be under way.

On Wednesday 20th June the convenors at Coventry had informal discussions with the industrial relations manager on the problems of parity. They indicated that the only means of achieving parity at Peterborough would be by Coventry taking a smaller annual award relative to Peterborough or by Coventry having a complete standstill until Peterborough caught up. They advised that they were not prepared to accept either alternative.

We shall ignore at our peril the dangers of these new words being brought into the old-established bases of discussion. I believe that there should be equalised pay for identical work, but we know that Coventry is a special and unique case. The reason that the firm has to pay extra money in Coventry is that the wage levels there are such that the firm would not get anybody to work for it unless it paid that sort of money. If such a course is likely to make a company bankrupt, the question might be asked "Why not withdraw from Coventry?" The answer is clear. If a firm has an investment of £25 to £50 million in an area, it must work and take all reasonable steps to try to preserve the capital investment that is already there. I know the City of Coventry well, and perhaps I live nearer to the city than do some of those who represent the city in this House.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

Come off it!

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I refer particularly to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). I am dealing particularly with the people with knowledge of the area, people who live in it and understand it. The people in the area must be careful that they do not cut their own throats. They must be careful to see that in exploiting their special situation they should not make the area less attractive to all firms.

My general solution to the problem is that of arbitration. There will always be differences of view as to what is right or wrong, and we must find some way of using a compulsory arbitrator to come in as referee and settle these matters between two honest sides. Management do not want such an arrangement. Management representatives have told me, "We do not want any third party coming in to tell us what our financial commitments are to be." Unions do not want the arrangement, and I have been shouted down by Labour Members on a number of occasions when I have suggested this idea. They have said, "We do not want arbitrators because there is nobody we can trust."

That is a slander on England. We must get to the point where we can have somebody who can settle honest differences of view. I have much sympathy with my constituents at Perkins, but I cannot ignore the understandable reaction of management not to commit themselves to a principle which may spell bankruptcy to them and upset the balance of their industry.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and his conciliation officers on taking some initiative last week in the Perkins dispute. As a result of that initiative the management and unions agreed on a formula which could have ended the shutdown. Unhappily, as I have said, the convenors did not agree and it did not come off. My right hon. Friend must take the initiative. This is a matter of great concern to the nation and it may have terrible effects in terms of my constituents and their future prospects. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take a stand and take the sort of action which he and his officials took last week.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby on having raised this matter, but I am sorry that his speech lacked objectivity. However, we must pay attention to his opening words which were wise and which posed a problem that we should all ponder. Let us see whether we can find some way of bringing the two sides together under a common denominator. Let us hope that the good health of our industry will be restored so that the wealth of our nation and our people's standard of living will not suffer.

Far too often Labour Members feel that it is their job to support the unions, whatever the unions do and whatever they say. Often we on our side feel that we have to put the opinion of management. The truth is that there are not two sides to the situation any more. Management and unions together represent industry. Unless this is clearly understood, I tremble for the future of this country. However, we shall find a way out of the problem, and I am optimisic abou the future. We in this House can set the machinery in motion, and I hope that by our words today we shall see that the right course is taken.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman (Coventry, North)

I shall not engage in comparisons between the experiences in Coventry of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and my own in the city which I have had the honour to represent in this House for 28 years. I say merely that Coventry has become a pacemaker in wage earnings because of high trade union organisation, because of the high skills and craftsmanship of its workers and because Coventry is outstanding in the way in which it has been a leader not only in labour relations but also in productivity.

I join the hon. Member for Peterborough in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), who initiated this debate. In a speech which was marked by wit, eloquence and profundity my hon. Friend dealt with some of the issues which have been observed as affecting the motor industry in the recent Chrysler strike. We all welcome the news that the strike has ended. However, the problems remain. They are problems of leisure day work, of piece work, of the boredom and the fatigue of the "track". They are problems of general labour relations. All these remain.

Among those problems perhaps the greatest and most important, because it affects so many people in this country, is that of the attitude of the multinational companies which are now present in Britain. I need quote only one statistic to show the impact of the multinational companies. One worker in every 17 in this country is employed by a multinational company. American investment in Britain, largely from international and multi-national companies, is of the order of £2,000 million.

Even if we for our own part counter-balance that investment by a still greater investment in the United States, it remains true that American investment in Britain is more significant because, whereas the Americans have made their investment in the key sectors of our industry, our investment in the United States is disseminated through consumer purposes like launderettes which are not to be compared in their influence with the influence which the Americans exercise through their multi-national investment here.

The strike at Chryslers has posed one important question. How can Britain cope with the power of multi-national companies whose interests transcend frontiers? Some hon. Members have been greatly occupied with their fears about British loss of sovereignty to the Common Market institutions. I am surprised that those who have been most vocal in their criticism of that loss of sovereignty have not shown an equally articulate concern about the factual loss of sovereignty involved in the fact that through their multi-national investment the Americans have such power without responsibility here.

This question raised during the Chrysler dispute was made manifest when one of the Chrysler directors threatened that future investment would not be applied here but would be moved outside, possibly to Spain. The fact that that threat was made in the same context as the threat to move Ford out of England by Mr. Henry Ford II on the very day that he lunched with the Prime Minister is a matter which affects the whole of our national economy and a matter of which we must take cognisance.

It is not my purpose today to em-embitter any situation existing in the motor industry. I support the demand made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby for an inquiry. I might say in passing that those journalists who have criticised the demand for an inquiry into the motor industry on the ground that when this House is in difficulty it always calls for an inquiry should reflect that this House must be the grand inquest of the nation. Whenever a problem arises such as the present one affecting the motor industry it is right that there should he an inquiry. My hon. Friend calls for an inquiry into labour relations. I go further. I believe that the inquiry must be into the very structure of the motor industry. Unless the inquiry goes beyond the simple fact of confrontation between capital and labour and goes into the very structure of the industry it will be impossible to arrive at any constructive conclusion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby made some observations about the new Chairman of Chrysler, Mr. Gilbert Hunt, who has superseded Lord Rootes. The hon. Member for Peterborough spoke about the extreme attitudes taken by my hon. Friend, no doubt when my hon. Friend referred to Mr. Hunt. However, I was not astonished by my hon. Friend's extremeness. On the contrary, I was astonished by his moderation.

I hope to show that the rôle of Mr. Gilbert Hunt in this matter is one which has done grave damage not only to Chrysler and its workers but also to the relationship between management and labour in this country. Therefore, I make no apology for returning to the subject because it illustrates some of the gravest implications of the Chrysler strike. When Mr. Gilbert Hunt took over as managing director of Chrysler, according to the Sunday Times Business News of 1st October 1967, he said: When you take over a job like this, you have to be tough immediately. It's no good waiting five years to be tough—you'll never do it. The hatchet gets blunt…". This hatchet gentleman is not untrained in North American methods.

Here I interpose another observation. No one would wish to use the occasion of these difficulties between certain multinational companies and their workers for an exercise in anti-Americanism. No one would wish to use the occasion to encourage any latent xenophobia in this matter. At the same time there are techniques of management which were used in the past in the United States and which I condemn strongly. When anyone tries to revive these techniques, which had such damaging effects in the United States, I shall do all that I can to resist them.

Everyone knows that Chrysler was among the leading firms in the United States in the 1930s in employing thugs and strong-arm men as strike breakers and picket breakers to enforce the company's will against labour. The company resisted the organisation of labour. It was opposed to any form of trade unionism, and it used men of violence to promote those ends. It was noted by the La Follette Committee, a Congressional Committee in the United States, that Chrysler spent 76,000 dollars in a single year to use the espionage services of a company called the Corporation Auxiliary Company to engage in espionage and strong-arm tactics against its workers.

That is old history of the 1930s. I refer to it only because in the past few weeks at Coventry we have seen an attempt to revive methods which everyone in this House will deplore. This kind of espionage is novel in this country. But the methods used to end the Chrysler strike normally would be hardly credited.

Let me recall to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, who said that Mr. Gilbert Hunt was not a reactionary employer, of an event which occurred early in 1969. I regret that I am obliged to personalise this matter in order to indicate the kind of problem which may arise in the future.

On 18th March 1969 Mr. Hunt wrote a letter, which has now been published, to the Chancellor of Warwick University. It was headed "Strictly Confidential". Mr. Hunt wrote: At my request, Mr. N. P. Catchpole, our Director of Legal Affairs, attended a meeting of the Coventry Labour Party on 3rd March, which was being addressed by Dr. D. Montgomery. Dr. Montgomery was an American lecturer on industrial affairs at Warwick University. The letter went on: As you will see from the attached notes of the meeting, nothing was said by him which would involve prosecution under the 1919 Aliens Restriction Act, but I felt it would be advisable nevertheless for you to have a copy of these notes for your confidential files. There follows the report from which I quote only the first sentence: accompanied by Mr. T. Norton, security officer, Stoke, I duly attended a meeting of the Coventry Labour Party at its offices on Monday 3rd March. I have often wondered who these strange faces are at meetings of the Coventry Labour Party. Be that as it may, what was the subversive subject about which this American lecturer was lecturing to the Coventry Labour Party? What was the subject which prompted Mr. Gilbert Hunt to seek to invoke the Aliens Restriction Act which, the House will recall, was designed to prevent foreigners from stimulating strikes or labour disputes in Britain? All that Dr. Montgomery was concerned with was to lecture on the difference between measured day work and piece rate work. That was the theme of the lecture. It was as simple and as innocent as that. Yet Mr. Hunt and his entourage was obviously attempting to use American methods of espionage which the Americans themselves discarded more than 30 years ago.

If that were all, perhaps one should not seek to return to the subject. However, the affair of the pickets and the strong-arm men described so dramatically and effectively by my hon. Friend is something of which the House must surely take cognisance. One of the reasons why the Chrysler workers were successful in this dispute was precisely that, even where it was not articulate, public opinion on the whole resented and deplored some of the attitudes taken by the management.

Indeed, the break-out by these hired men with their lorries, clandestinely taking engines out of the Stoke works at night, with all the technique of men accustomed to acting in ways which most of us would deplore, is symbolical and significant and, indeed, is as much to be condemned as the break-in at the Watergate.

I say that because I believe that Chrysler might well consider, in dealing with Mr. Gilbert Hunt, that as a result of his intervention it lost £2 million. It might consider perhaps giving him a golden handshake of £1 million because it would be cheap at the price.

More than that, I hope and believe that hon. Members will strongly condemn any attempt to revive these old-fashioned and damaging methods of using violence to bring workers to their knees.

I assure the Minister and anyone who is concerned with this matter that those methods will not work in Coventry. Indeed, I do not believe that they will work anywhere with the organised labour movement in Britain.

In the course of the dispute another matter arose. Unfavourable comparisons were made between labour relations in the British motor industry, in particular in Coventry, and the calm and contented way in which in Chrysler-Simca in France there has not been one strike in the last six years.

I ask the House to consider how this docile labour force has come about. This docile labour force is composed almost exclusively of immigrant workers, most of them poor workers from North America who must send remittances home to their families. They live in tin-can shanty towns in great measure and, because of this material dependence on their job, they certainly have the discipline of the threat of dismissal and it is a powerful one.

I hope that we in this country have advanced beyond that. I hope that we have advanced beyond the time when management disciplines labour by the threat of hunger. I hope that we will not hear too often this comparison quoted between Chrysler-Simca and Chrysler Coventry.

The fashonable threat also is to move industry to Spain. What happens in Spain? Even in Spain, even in that Fascist country, where some of the motor companies threaten to move their operations, there will not be a labour force content to accept inflictions which affect their human dignity. Today in Spain there is a very large strike going on at the Leyland operation where the workers, resentful and resistant, have struck, and now they have been locked out by the Leyland management.

All I want to emphasise in that connection is that it behoves the Government, for it is their responsibility, to deal with those multi-national companies which at the drop of a hat, as a result of a dispute over 1½ hours pay, are prepared to threaten to move elsewhere to make their workers toe the line.

I wish to touch on the way in which the Chrysler company slowly ate its way into the British economy. It will be recalled that in 1964 the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that Chrysler was buying itself into the country. He said specifically—this was a pledge by a Tory Minister—that control would remain in the United Kingdom.

Later in 1964 I led a deputation of shop stewards from the Humber works, as it was then known, to see my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Technology. We protested in strong terms against this United States takeover. The Minister made reassuring noises. In 1967, when Chrysler made its second bite, the Minister again reassured us.

Again in 1972, when Chrysler finally acquired what was left—the minority British shareholding in the company, the last foothold that the British shareholder could have to criticise the Chrysler management, the Chrysler ownership—what did the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs call it? He called it a cosmetic operation. Cosmetic operations are usually used to improve ugly faces. I cannot say from experience of what happens that the cosmetic operation of taking over the last remnant of the British shareholding did anything to improve matters.

In 1964 I asked the right hon. Member for Barnet, the then Chancellor, whether it was not the case that the trustees of the Rootes family—the General Trust of Nassau—are precluded by law from giving guarantees for the future, so that the majority shareholding in Rootes may at some time in the future come under the control of Chrysler's? Quite apart from the financial manipulations with which we are concerned today, is it not the case that in Chrysler's we have a firm with an unstable record at a time of recession, and that, if it were administering this important section of the British motor industry, if it had to choose between sacking men in Detroit or men in Coventry or Linwood, it would certainly act to the disadvantage of this country? The Minister replied: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the Bahamas are within the United Kingdom exchange control. The second question is highly hypothetical, particularly because the firm is not administering, and will not administer, the Rootes Company."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th June 1964, Vol. 696, c. 38–9.] That was a pledge. My forecasts in this connection have regrettably come true.

The fact remains that Chrysler has explicit obligations and duties to its workers. They are obligations and duties which were set out in a communication from Chrysler to the Minister of Technology on 16th January 1967 when Chrysler took its second large slice of the company which gave it a major holding. The chief of these undertakings reads as follows: Chrysler will not initiate any action to impair either the home or overseas operations or the management and direction of Rootes as a British company in its relations with the Government, labour, its British shareholders and the public. When Chrysler threatened that it would move its investment overseas in certain contingencies the Secretary of State had a duty to refer to this undertaking and to intervene as any refusal to make investment in Britain obviously contradicts Chrysler's specific pledge. I charge him with not having done so. I believe that he failed in his duty, at the time of the Chrysler strike, to remind it and any other multi-national company that it had not the right to bring pressure on British workers and, through them, on the British economy to pursue multifarious activities.

I do not believe that the Chrysler dispute, in which the strikers had a large measure of public support for their dignity in the face of managerial provocation and menace, will have been in vain if Chrysler learns the lesson that labour relations must not be what they were in Detroit in 1930. Coventry workers are not helots serving a superior technology masterminded 3,000 or more miles away. Coventry workers, like most people in Britain, want a British motor industry, certainly with American investment, but in which their rights and duties can find fulfilment. It is for the British Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, to ensure that the British motor industry lives up to its traditions and name.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) in a debate on the motor industry. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on initiating the debate. The hon. Gentleman declared his interest in Chrysler, pointing out that the car plant was in his constituency. The truck and heavy commercial vehicle and van plant is in Dunstable in my constituency.

I also join the hon. Member for Coventry, North in protesting against the reckless, foolish action of trying to smuggle or charge engines through the picket lines at the dead of night and bringing them to Dunstable. It will be no surprise to the House that when the engines that were got away arrived at Dunstable they were immediately blacked. If 500 had been got out of Ryton or Stoke in that way they would have been blacked as well.

It is wrong to suggest that the pattern of labour relations is uniform throughout all Chrysler plants. Dunstable is often a casualty of labour disputes, not the cause of them. We are delighted that there has been a settlement in the Coventry area, but we are still dependent on a settlement in the Perkins dispute to get back to full production because the diesels for medium and heavy commercial vehicles are supplied from Peterborough.

This year has been a very much improved period for Chrysler trucks in Dunstable. Every factory has certain small local disputes, and Dunstable has not been entirely free of them, but production is running at a record level. Almost £3 million has been invested in the Dunstable plant since 1970. There is every sign that if outside suppliers can resolve their difficulties we shall have a continuing good year in Dunstable especially as the market is more buoyant than in 1971 and 1972.

I think that we can link this debate with that initiated by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) a few weeks ago on health and safety at work. As has been said, it is often the repetitive nature of the job on the car or truck assembly line that can cause a stoppage or a dispute.

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said. This is an important factory in relations in the motor industry. However, does he agree that it is common to industries other than the motor industry? Therefore, it is important, in the context of the motor industry, not to exaggerate this point.

Mr. Madel

I do not wish to exaggerate the point. The motor industry is special and I want to indicate why I think the dispute happened and to make suggestions how to avoid the difficulties. We cannot simply measure a stoppage in vehicles lost per day. That is a slightly misleading phrase. The number of vehicles lost per day can be made up on other days by masses of overtime and Sunday working. If a newspaper stopped production for a day, I should regard that as lost. Therefore, to refer to so many vehicles lost per day because of a dispute is slightly misleading. However, a stoppage has an important effect on local suppliers to the car industry. All motor cities and towns in Britain have a whole host of allied industries totally dependent on uninterrupted production by the car plants in order that they may be able to pay good wages and make profits, and so on.

The motor industry is a relatively young post-war industry, neither side of which has the depth of understanding of each other's problems such as we have in our older industries. In a sense, industrial relations in the motor industry should be much better than anywhere else, not least because it is not associated with the heavy and massive unemployment of the 1930s. I believe that one of the reasons that industrial relations are not good is that the motor car industry has been used like a yo-yo by successive Governments in their formulation and use of economic policies.

There has been a great lack of understanding of what a squeeze means with short-time working three days a week and lay-offs. Then, when the order comes out—it is not an order from the motor industry; it is virtually the result of Government policy—expand, build up production, run flat out, the industry brings in overtime and night shift working—we do not know enough about that yet—and we get problems with massive increased production.

The motor industry needs a sustained period of growth which will give people a sense of job security and of continuity of employment in that industry.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

Does my hon. Friend agree that an effective way of ensuring long-term uninterrupted growth would be the abolition of the car tax?

Mr. Madel

My hon. Friend is preaching to the converted. I am not happy about that tax. I have in the past put down Questions on this matter and discussed it in economic debates. However, we have had a hint from the Chancellor that, if necessary, he will not hesitate to take action on it.

The country with the most experience of the car industry and which should be the hallmark, the guiding light, of how to handle its problems is the United States of America. Yet we find in the Economist of 26th May, in a report commissioned by the President and entitled "Work in America", prepared by a task force for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, that 76 per cent. of blue-collar workers and 57 per cent. of white-collar workers were dissatisfied with their jobs. The report talks about a serious dispute at Lordstown in the United States and states: The strikers there were young—about a quarter of America's total work force is under 30—and it is young workers, with high economic and social expectations, who are seeking middle-class comforts and status that their jobs are unlikely ever to provide. American experience should have foreseen this problem. We are now producing our own reports. One report, "On the Quality of Working Life", published by the Department of Employment, refers to a report 21 years ago in the United States, "The Man on the Assembly Line". That report says that what people most disliked was the machine pacing. The next most disliked feature was that many found it physically tiring…Men also said that there was little or no possibility of using their brains, developing skills, attending to quality of work". In another passage the report states: We may note, however, that a constant trickle of later reports from several countries, some of them written from very different points of view and arriving at different conclusions, seem to confirm the nature of the work experience of the man (or woman) on production-line work as described in the 1952 report. One would hope that after 21 years since that report Europe, which has expanded its car industry rapidly, would be taking action. We find it in some areas. The classic cases often quoted are Volvo and Saab in Sweden. But there is also Fiat. Fiat manufacture the largest number of smaller cars in Europe. In a report in the Financial Times of 18th May there is this passage: 'Islands' for the completion of one whole assembly job are to be created. They will be fed by a stock of cars so as not to be tied down to any kind of timing…Vastly increased investments are required to equip four lines with tools and machines instead of one. The idea is to rid the assembly line of the one monotonously repeated movement, the horror'. of repeated work.

Europe has much to do in this respect. We are the No. 1 growth zone for cars and trucks, and I include Eastern Europe in that. The late Mr. Khrushchev used to say that he would try to create a goulash Communism. We may be trying to create a motor car Communism. There is a vast market there.

Industry—and especially the motor industry—has to throw its weight behind job enrichment, and that means the total commitment of industry and a greatly increased amount of investment. The result will not be achieved if 20 per cent. of manufacturers do that and the other 80 per cent. do not and therefore undercut the 20 per cent.

The problem is extremely large. The report "On the Quality of Working Life" says on page 49: It seems certain that we shall have an increasing need for technically-qualified versatile, 'responsible' workers"— I am not sure that "responsible" is the right word; I think it should be "responsive"— and probable that the educational system under its current philosophies will produce too many people with opposite characteristics. We need to develop our thinking about the future of work having regard to the fact that manufacturing, although of continuing importance, is likely to be a smaller segment of employment in future and much less typical of what will occupy a worker's time.

We are nearing phase 3, when alterations are to be made. I must emphasise again that part of the document from which I have quoted which goes back to the 1952 report and says that the next most disliked feature on the assembly line was that many found it physically tiring. I hope that in phase 3 the Government will ease up on the restrictions which they imposed under phase 2 on hours of work and will allow the car industry, for example, to give its workers less time in which to do the work. In other words, a reduction of hours of work is essential.

The onus is very much on management and Government to enrich jobs and to try to deal with assembly line monotony, but there is one reform which the trade unions could make quickly, and that is to create a single craft union in the motor industry.

That cannot be done by management decree, by the Government or by the House of Commons passing a resolution. The Economist of 26th May said: In their negotiations this autumn the improvements which the United Automobile Workers will be pressing for at work include improved health and safety standards, the end of compulsory overtime and more say in running the plant. A self-evident truth appears in paragraph (6)(d) of the revised procedural agreement at Vauxhall Motors. It says: The management expresses its complete willingness at all times to see Trade Union officials concerned or interested in either local or Company—wide matters and to consult and keep them informed when matters affecting employees and their work are under consideration. Because of that, both sides in the car industry will be the better able to carry out the spirit of the recommendation if there is a single car union and if there is greater recognition that there is something special about the car industry and that we do not know enough about the effects of monotonous assembly-line work. I hope that the Government will continue the work that they are setting in train after the publication of this report.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, Northfield)

I have Britain's biggest car plant in my constituency. May I therefore straight away declare another interest. I am a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and a member of the TGWU branch at the factory.

If there is one thing that I have learned in the three years that I have been in this House, it is that I should treat with caution the disputes that arise from time to time in the car industry because it is extremely difficult, unless one is in the plant, in the industry and somewhere near to the heart of the problem, even to begin to understand it. There is, on the part of both management and trade unions, a certain dislike of politicians who are only too prepared—and this applies to Ministers also—to step in at the drop of a hat to make quick and easy publicity out of a statement or action relating to a dispute.

I hope to be associated with the Northfield constituency, with Longbridge within it, for many years to come. The same is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis), where many of my car workers live. I know that my hon. Friend will want to be established in his constituency and take an interest in car industry affairs. One of my constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher), whose husband works in the great factory in my constituency, will expect me to take a continuing and deepening interest in the affairs of the car industry.

This is an industry to which one cannot pay too much attention. It is extremely complex and difficult to understand. After becoming a Member of this House, I went into the car plant for a fortnight, full-time, to try to understand the problems facing the men and management. One of the things that struck me almost immediately was the understanding that existed between the management and the men. On reading the headlines in the Press, watching the television screen of listening to the radio, one gets the impression that management and men are continually at each others' throats. I can speak only for British Leyland at Longbridge, but that was not my impression during my fortnight in the works, and it has not been my impression during the various meetings that I have had with the management side or in my dealings with the trade union side.

I repeat that I am talking only about British Leyland, and not about Chrysler, General Motors or Ford, and I have no doubt from what has been said so far, and from what may be said in the rest of the debate, that some distinction is drawn between the way in which British Leyland runs its affairs and the way in which American-owned companies operate.

Industrial relations are a difficult subject for the House to deal with at any time, particularly as we are far removed from the source of dispute. It is even more difficult for the Government to deal with the problem. Over the last three years, the Government's attempts to deal with industrial relations have come almost to nought, and it is significant that today no reference has been made to the Industrial Relations Act.

We all remember those heated, impassioned debates of three years ago. The Act was going to solve everything and put all the problems to rights. The dulcet tones of hon. Gentlemen opposite today come as no surprise to hon. Members on these benches who knew that at some time hon. Gentlemen opposite would have to come face to face with reality and deal with the real world and people outside in a human way rather than in the sloganised fashion of three years ago.

Industrial relations are a complex subject anywhere, but they are even more so in the car industry, and perhaps we should ask ourselves why that is so. First, it is because of the sheer size of the industry. British Leyland and its separate industries control the lives of 5 million people in this country. Dependants of their work force add up to that total. If one takes all the other car industries into account one realises that a massive section of the British economy is involved, and a small cough in Longbridge, or in the Girling Brake factory at Cardiff, or at Dunstable or Coventry can often spread pneumonia in a short space of time throughout that large section of the British economy.

This is a complex industry. We should remind ourselves that, after a house, a motor car is the biggest and most complex single possession of ordinary consumers. Then there is the nature of the production process. Hon. Members have referred to the assembly line. The motor car is the largest mass-produced product, with tens of thousands of small pieces going into each one. It only needs a halt in a factory producing one of those vital components and the assembly lines in Longbridge, Coventry, Dagenham and Luton come to a grinding halt.

Then there is the fierce competitiveness of the industry. The fortunes of the Austin 1300 and, therefore, the wage packets of the workers who produce it may depend on the efforts of another company somewhere in Coventry or Dagenham to turn out a car in direct competition with it. This competitive pressure produces an atmosphere in which management and men are working to limits that no other industrial worker or manager has to face.

Can we be surprised, therefore, given these facts, at the level of disputes within the industry? I do not think we can. After all, the system does not allow any room for error. It allows for hardly any difference of opinion. Experience in all countries, wherever cars are made, is much the same. Nor does it matter whether the industry is State-owned or privately-owned. It is the industrial process itself that is the killer. This is the fact that binds car workers together whether they work for the State-owned Renault factory in France, British Leyland at Longbridge or General Motors in Detroit. All these industries, wherever they are sited and whatever their form of ownership, have similar difficulties.

What part can politicians and Governments play in bringing about a saner framework within which the industry can conduct its affairs more reasonably? Much has been said already about the nature of the work in the car factories. If anything is to be done about this it must be done internationally. It would be impossible for British Leyland or the British industry as a whole to do something about conditions for their working people while the industries in Germany, France, Japan and America were not prepared to do the same. However, in the absence of moves in that direction, we should do more to understand the pressures and tensions faced by people in the industry.

There is far too much ignorance about what life in the industry is like. It is very difficult for both management and men. They are working daily to the dictates of the market place. There is now the rising question of international competitiveness, with Toyotas running in our high streets and motorways and an influx of cars from the Continent. Our industry, whose investment and management has been backward for so many years, suddenly, has to compete with people who have brand new plants and ultra-modern management ideas. There is a lot the House can do to try to understand the nature of this industry.

We should also understand—I mean no disrespect to Japan—that the British worker is not a Japanese worker. We have a totally different experience. I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time and in the march forward of human experience and world history, we shall reach a common plateau. But at present it is impossible to compare, as some hon. Members opposite often do, the efforts of a British car worker in Dagenham or Longbridge with those of a Toyota worker in Japan. Their experiences are entirely different and, therefore, the people who have been moulded by those experiences come out of them totally different people.

We should also understand, before it is too late, that the car company in my constituency, British Leyland, is the only part of the British car industry that we have left. Everything else has gone to the Americans. I hope and I am sure that the House and the Government hope, that British Leyland remains in business and competitive and that it can maintain for Britain a stake in one of the world's most vital industries.

Also, we should start thinking more earnestly about the problems of life on the assembly line. Should an advanced country any longer ask men and women to work at such a pace? It is easy to say that they get amply rewarded. I dare say that when young children went down the pits in the 19th century people argued that they were well paid. Our history books show that some of the strongest opponents of reform there were the parents and some of the unions concerned.

We have arrived at a point in our industrial development—we are the oldest industrialised nation on earth—at which we should, because of our experience, knowledge and understanding, examine more closely the way in which we ask some of our citizens to work for us and produce the goods we want. I do not suggest that we should stop making motor cars, any more than it was suggested in the 19th century that we should stop mining coal. But I do suggest that we return to a system of employment in which jobs can be enriching and the learning process can be restored.

That is what working is about. Unfortunately, all learning has been taken out of work on an assembly track. That can he done with animals, and they will eventually turn on us. It is my view—I have no particular expertise in this field—that many of the disputes in the industry stem from the fact that people get bored. Perhaps, on a day like this, a foreman will be rude to a worker in a plant somewhere, or something will go wrong with the track or the feed of parts and men will look through the windows at the bright sunshine and think of a river and their rods and lines at home. That will be enough excuse to say, "We have had enough of this; let us get out and live a little."

Fortunately, British Leyland, from which I had a letter this morning, is addressing itself to many of these problems. I cannot speak for other companies, but I know that in the five years that Lord Stokes has been in charge there has been a great deal of advance in British Leyland in improving working conditions. At Longbridge there is a great deal of willingness on the part of the trade unions to ensure that the standards of their members are maintained and improved but, beyond that, that the existence of British Leyland is assured. There was a statement last week in the Birmingham Mail, while Lord Stokes was in Birmingham, to the effect that the works committee, the shop stewards and the whole of the trade union movement in the city were entirely behind the management and the company in their efforts to turn the Allegro, their new model, into a world-beater. Within British Leyland there is on both sides a determined effort to ensure that the company becomes a success.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse (Oxford)

What the hon. Gentleman has just said about British Leyland in Birmingham, and about the management and the trade union side, is also true in respect of Oxford.

Mr. Carter

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. The board of British Leyland is now diverse in its approach. Those of us who represent workers in factories in this group know that there has been a considerable attempt by British Leyland to ensure that all its workpeople throughout the country operate under conditions that are as near as possible equal to those of others. One could say something about that apropos the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). In the running of an industry which is as complex as the car industry, it is of great assistance to workers to have very nearly the same conditions in all the different sections of it.

We have talked a great deal about the conditions of the industry. No doubt more will be said. We have talked about the way in which workers are asked to perform their eight hours a day on an assembly line. I am convinced that while our society demands from the car industry that five to 10 cars a minute come off the assembly track, while the conditions of workers remain as they are and while the Government insist, from time to time, in disturbing relationships between management and men—the Industrial Relations Act, for example—we shall continue to experience difficulties. But we should not be upset by them or unduly disturbed. As a nation, as a Parliament, as political parties and as a Government we should try rather more to understand the nature of things and to deal more with the profounder aspects of industries such as the car industry, and we should stop sloganising.

There is far too much sloganising. We saw a great deal of that three years ago. The present Government have now discovered that in industrial relations they have to get to the heart of the matter and to deal with problems in a conciliatory way, acting as arbiters, and not, as occurred about three years ago, as a Government who were attempting everywhere to bring about conflict in order to solve problems.

Hon. Members on the Government side of the House often say that we must preserve the British way of life in all its forms. I happen to believe that the British shop steward is a part of that way of life. What the Chrysler Corporation, the Ford Company and General Motors must understand is that one can get rid of half a dozen shop stewards but the state of things is such that they will simply be replaced by six others who are likely to act in the same way.

I sincerely hope that the experience of the Chrysler Corporation last week has brought that home clearly to it. If it has, I am sure that the disruption that occurred in Coventry last week, although it may be repeated, may well not be repeated to the same extent.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)

We have had a thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) following two other speeches from the Opposition benches which were distinctly provocative. I must suggest that it is a little discourteous to the House for the mover of the motion, for one reason or another, to call for an inquiry and to cast a slur on the CIR, and then to leave the Chamber.

I have a constituency interest in this matter. About 2,000 of my constituents work in the motor and motor supply industry, of whom about 500 work at the Ryton plant of Chrysler. I have had some direct contact with them since the dispute began. I echo the feelings of relief that have been expressed on both sides of the House that the present dispute has been resolved, although undoubtedly the basic problems remain.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) presented a somewhat one-sided and colourful picture—too colourful—of the recent dispute. I shall not dwell on that for too long. I am not happy about the appearance of management and management practices at that plant. At the very least, it was unwise of the management to have a confrontation over an issue such as this, and to require reject panels to be put through the plant and then to reject them again on the ground of shoddy work.

I have accepted also the genuine grievance of those who are not employed in the body shop and, therefore, not directly involved—they include some of my constituents—who had their holiday pay stopped. Perhaps the management's action was understandable, if a little immature, in showing its frustration at yet further trouble in that plant.

No one whom I have heard has yet denied the Chrysler Corporation's claim that Ryton has given more trouble through industrial disputes than any of its other plants throughout the world. That trouble has hit Chrysler's immediate profits but, much more important, it has prejudiced further development, which means jobs in the future. It has cut the incomes and living standards of that moderate majority of Chrysler employees who just want to work and earn a decent wage every day of every working week and every week of the working year. I should like to tell the House of a comment made to me by a Chrysler employee, whom I take to be a moderate. He said that he found himself frequently caught between the management and the militant trades union leaders.

It is management's responsibility to put these matters right. I welcome particularly what the hon. Member for Northfield said about the efforts of British Leyland in that respect. British Leyland's lead could well be followed. Management, however, cannot do anything without the co-operation of the men's leaders. If the policy of those leaders, or the conveners or shop stewards in the crucial section of a factory, is not to co-operate, the answer lies in the votes of those who elect them to their office.

My constituents have asked about the future of the Ryton plant. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development has supplied me with some information about that. I have already pursued the point that the Minister should immediately have gone back to Chrysler and asked for reassurances concerning the original undertakings. I am told that these were reaffirmed in December 1972, only a few months before this present dispute. My right hon. Friend has told me that Chrysler reaffirmed at that time not only that it was holding to the remaining five undertakings but also that it intended to continue the operations of Chrysler United Kingdom in manufacturing vehicles for the British market and for export and utilising as fully as possible its extensive plants in the United Kingdom. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend if he will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development to seek a specific assurance from Chrysler that these undertakings apply to the Ryton plant and that it will not be diminished in size or its operations moved elsewhere.

On the wider issues my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) has suggested more to help in the resolution of these problems than Opposition spokesmen. We have had analyses by the dozen of what the problems are. We have had references to the difficulties resulting from the type of work, the monotony of work on the track, and reference to the piece work system and its replacement by measured day work. There have been references to the fact that there are too many unions in the industry, and I endorse entirely what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about this. The question is what can the Government do about it and how can the House legislate. We can go on referring to job enrichment; we can make some sort of pious exhortation that the entire motor industry throughout the world will realise the necessity for it. But that is not real life. Someone has to give a lead, and it is the responsibility of management to do so. I do not believe that suggestions for legislation can come from this House.

I should like to draw management's attention to the figures from Sweden—I believe they come from Volvo. That company claims that its new group approach is probably 10 per cent. less efficient in labour productivity. If that is so it should be compared with the 25 per cent. loss of production which Lord Stokes claimed for British Leyland alone last year, and that was largely due to industrial disputes.

If peaceful working can come from the group approach, clearly it is the way in which the industry should go, on commercial grounds if on no other. I accept what hon. Members on both sides have said about the need for job enrichment but monotony is not confined to the motor industry. There are operations in the hosiery industry, the biggest in my constituency, where there is a unit production cycle of as little as five seconds. That is done by female labour.

However, the Government can take some action when it comes to replacing piece work with measured day work. I refer especially to the Government's policy under phase 3. It has been shown that it is necessary to encourage, sometimes through increased financial payment, the change from one system to the other. I hope that where a genuine scheme is proposed for those factories where measured day work is not yet in operation and where there is every reasonable expectation of success, such schemes will be permitted perhaps even as exceptional cases under phase 3. I hope also that where any sort of group bonus scheme can be worked out in a section of a plant it will fall within the terms of a meaningful and genuine productivity agreement and again will be permitted under phase 3. This then is an area in which the Government can act.

However, there is no doubt that the best resolution of the problem can come from co-operation between management and employees. This will not stem from any magical change of attitude. It must come from improved consultation and improved involvement. I shall mention the Industrial Relations Act [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rugby knows very well not only of some of the advantages of the Act which have been conferred upon workers but also of the benefit brought by the code of practice.

Mr. William Price

The hon. Member must be joking!

Mr. Edelman

Is the hon. Member not aware that the Industrial Relations Act is for the workers probably the most hated Act of the century? Does he not realise that the Act was the beginning of confrontation and it is largely because of it that so many industrial disputes now arise?

Mr. Butler

The hon. Member no doubt studied the Act in great detail and will know that it is not the contents of the Act which are offensive. The offensive part stems from the synthetic opposition built up by Labour Members and their friends in the trade union movement. The Act will in due course come to be thanked by both employers and trade unions throughout industry.

Through the code of practice employers have been encouraged to put their houses in order and to give the right degree of priority to industrial relations. In that code of practice there is a requirement for consultation and for the setting up of joint consultative bodies. Here the Government must move one step further forward. The code has been adhered to by many employers but now we must legislate for joint consultation at factory level. That means that works councils representing the entire employee force must be statutorily required in factories above a certain size. Of course they must have meaningful agendas and must be able to deal with some commercial matters.

This is an enormous subject and I must not trespass too far on the time of the House. However, employees have rights comparable with, if not identical to, those of shareholders. Those rights stem from the fact that, like the shareholders, the employees draw their income from the company. The logic of this is that they should have some say in the choice of management which is to contribute so much to that income. If profit-sharing schemes are introduced, a matter which I do not believe we can legislate for but which businesses should be encouraged to introduce where practical, the employees have a further need to be involved in management selection.

I am not sold on the idea of two-tier or supervisory boards, but they are one vehicle on which employees can practise this say in the choice of management. However, we must move very slowly towards that point. Reform is essentially the responsibility of management and it must work up from plant level. What I have said obviously concerns industry at large, but if applied in the motor car industry it would make a positive contribution towards resolving the sort of problems which exist there.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice (East Ham, North)

I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on the speech with which he opened the debate. I thought it was a brilliant and provocative speech which was packed with meaning. I also congratulate him on his choice of subject. The House should debate industrial relations more often. It becomes a more meaningful debate if we discuss a particular industry, particularly, as in this case, where hon. Members who take part have a knowledge of that industry in their own constituencies and make the kind of speeches to which we have listened this afternoon.

It is also rather an unusual situation in that a great deal of the debate has inevitably been concerned with the Chrysler dispute. We seldom debate specific disputes, and if we do it is usually at the height of a crisis, as with the docks dispute last summer. Here we have an opportunity to debate a dispute in a kind of inquest situation just after it has ended, something we rarely, if ever, have done in my experience. This is particularly valuable. It is absolutely right that we should pass judgment on it and try to derive lessons from it.

I completely share the strong criticisms that have been made of the Chrysler management's handling of the dispute in the past few weeks. I hope that I can be acquitted of the general charge that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) threw at the Opposition—and I think that the whole Opposition can be acquitted of it—that we inevitably attack management and take the side of trade unions in these matters. I have gone on record sometimes as criticising trade unions in dispute, and no doubt I shall do so again. All hon. Members have a duty to take a view of such situations, to be objective about them.

Of course, we are all influenced by our background, and I am influenced by my background as a trade unionist. But we have a duty to the country to examine a situation of the kind we are debating and try to assess what went wrong.

There is an almost unanimous verdict that the management's handling of the dispute was clumsy and damaging. The dispute cost the company about £10 million-;worth of production of a highly successful car and, I understand, cost the workers involved an average of £150 each, at a time of the year when no doubt many of them were planning family holidays. Therefore, it was a tragic set of circumstances for everyone involved, and a loss to the country. Above all, it was unnecessary.

I should like to comment on the conduct of management, without going through the detailed sequence of events which has already been discussed. The extraordinary sequence of events just before the Spring Bank Holiday leads inevitably to the conclusion that the managing director or someone in authority in Britain or in Detroit, or both, had made a decision to look for an opportunity for a confrontation in the plant. I do not think that the events of the two days before the Spring Bank Holiday can be explained simply in terms of a series of ad hoc blunders. The evidence points to a decision made beforehand to seek an excuse for confrontation, and someone thought that he had the excuse during those two days.

Mr. Adam Butler

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very serious allegation about the company. Has he any evidence for it?

Mr. Prentice

It is a serious allegation, and it is meant to be a serious allegation. This is a serious debate dealing with a serious matter, a dispute which was very costly to the company, to the men concerned and to the community. Therefore, we must tackle it seriously. I am making a serious allegation on the grounds that I cannot otherwise explain the sequence of events whereby material was put on to the assembly line during that day which was certified by foremen to be unsuitable—evidence of this has been printed in Conservative newspapers—after which the slip to that effect was torn off by higher management so that the material went through and the cars were then rejected.

I cannot understand that, except on the basis that there was a deliberate decision earlier to seek a confrontation. If the company has some other explanation, it owes that explanation to the country, because we are entitled to hear from it what went wrong. The welfare of the country is tied up with the efficiency of its large employers, and there is a degree of public accountability here on which we should insist.

The second point is that the policy of mass punishment of groups of workers is grossly unfair and is bound to be self-defeating in a modern society, with all the resentment which inevitably flows from it. To punish a whole group of workers for the alleged shoddy work of some is, of course, unjust and will, of course, provoke the reaction which it did provoke. One of the Chrysler management is quoted as saying that he thinks 75 per cent. of the workers on that assembly line on that day were guilty of shoddy work. I do not accept the 75 per cent. But even if I did it would still be wrong to penalise 100 per cent. of the workers on that line because of the shoddy work of 75 per cent. That, too, is something which stands to be condemned and should be condemned.

Thirdly, it was totally wrong of the company to say after the strike had been called that it would not meet the union at any level until there had been a return to work. Such an attitude of mind may have been fashionable a generation ago. It is no longer in tune with the realities of industry in this country, and I am very glad that it is not. Any company that pursues that policy is getting itself out on to a limb from which it is bound to retreat, as Chrysler has had to retreat.

On top of that, there was a series of cowboy-and-Indian tactics, which has already been referred to. There were the threatening letter about the possibility of no further investment in this country; the photographing of the picket lines, which was bound to be regarded by the men concerned as the accumulation of evidence for future victimisation, whatever other explanation was made at the time; and the hiring of the tough characters to break through into the engine plant at two o'clock in the morning.

Each of those decisions was bound to be self-defeating from the company's point of view. Experienced managers should have known that. They should have known that they would harden the attitude of the men. That was inevitable. Indeed, they should have realised that they were heading for a situation in which they would have to capitulate completely, a situation in which all possibility of compromise was being wiped out by their own actions. That is what has happened.

I appeal to the Secretary of State to express himself on these matters on behalf of the Government. We have this opportunity given us by my hon. Friend to debate the matter at an opportune time. I should like to hear from the Government rather more than we have heard from them in the past few weeks. We have heard very little. They should tell Chrysler that we welcome its investment in this country, as we welcome all investment from the United States, but that we expect it to take an intelligent and up-to-date view of industrial relations and not pursue wrecking tactics of the kind we have seen in the past few weeks.

I should like to add just three other footnotes to the dispute. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) said, it is just one more example of the complete irrelevance of the Industrial Relations Act. I do not think that throughout the dispute there was any serious suggestion from any quarter that any section of the Act should be used by anyone in connection with the dispute.

Secondly, we should pay a tribute to the Lord Mayor of Coventry for the considerable efforts he made towards bringing the dispute to an end, which are in line with the tradition established by the Coventry City Council under its Labour majority over some years. It has been much more actively involved in the economic life of the city than most local authorities are; it has been involved to great effect. Its efforts to end the dispute were in the best of that tradition, and a tribute should go to the Lord Mayor and other members of the authority for the part they played. The active rôle of the Lord Mayor was in contrast to the lack of activity from the Government in the dispute.

I next refer to what I hope will be the hopeful clause in the agreement which was made a few days ago. It seems that both sides are recognising a joint responsibility to avoid a repetition of the events which occurred before the Spring Bank Holiday. There is recognition of the need to improve arrangements on the assembly line and to ensure that supervision of quality, and other aspects of supervision, are sensibly arranged.

I am sure that the study made in the plant by full-time trade union officials will be of great help and relevance provided that the management is prepared to make use of it. The details of the report are confidential, but I understand that it includes a great deal about supervision and quality control and that it provides the basis on which these matters can be sensibly improved.

Throughout the summer we have had what inevitably has been described in the Press as a long, hot summer in the motor industry. Most of the leading companies have been involved in disputes to a greater or lesser extent in the last few months. Some of those disputes did not develop to the stage which was once feared. I refer, for example, to the Ford Motor Company and what might have been a prolonged strike about pay. It would, in effect, have been a strike against Government pay policy. Such a strike was avoided and personally I am glad that it was able to be avoided.

Some disputes have been worse than they need have been. Whatever merits there were in the case of the plant attendants at Cowley who were on strike, it is difficult for the outside observer to understand why terms were rejected on 13th June which were accepted on 20th June, thereby prolonging for a week the unemployment of 12,000 of their fellow-workers.

I do not want to go into the Perkins engine dispute. I have a feeling that the least said about that today the better. However, I respect the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The National Joint Council of Massey-Ferguson is meeting tomorrow. We all express the hope that a formula might be produced which will lead to a return to work.

There may be, as sometimes happens after the unhappy events of recent weeks, a more peaceful period. I do not know whether that will be so. Sometimes such a change takes place because of a change of mood on both sides in an industry which has been subject to conflict. I express the hope that the moderate elements on both sides will prevail in the difficulties which remain.

During the debate we are bound to challenge the whole industry to do more about the basic problems to which reference has been made. We are bound to challenge the Government to define their own rôle in relation to those difficulties. The motion speaks of an inquiry. There may be need for an inquiry and I support the motion in that respect. However, I have the feeling that a generalised inquiry, to be long-winded, could lead to the postponement of action rather than the identification more quickly of sectors in which there should be early action.

It seems that the industry badly needs some kind of fire brigade operation to try to sort out problems which involve an industrial dispute. There is a need for the reactivation of the Motor Industry Joint Council. For a period the story of the council was a success story. I refer particularly to 1965–68 when the council was under the chairmanship of Sir Jack Scamp. At that time it had a chairman of great energy and ability. He was a man who was respected by both sides of the industry as being capable of taking a genuinely independent and objective view of all situations. He was a man who was not afraid to tread on the corns of management or unions and who could be relied upon to work constructively for a settlement. With him on the council during that period were six leading figures from each side of the industry. The council would not have succeeded unless they had been leading figures.

During 1965–68 the council dealt with 17 major industrial disputes. In each of those disputes, when it was asked to intervene, the council conducted an inquiry on the spot in the plant where the dispute was taking place. Such an inquiry took place generally within 24 hours of the council being asked to intervene, but always within 48 hours. In 15 out of the 17 disputes there was a resumption of work as soon as the court of inquiry arrived in the plant and before it made recommendations. That was a tribute to the respect which was held for the council at that time.

During the period to which I have referred the number of days lost in disputes was reduced by a half compared with the preceding three years. Since then the council has not been so active. I understand that it has not met for several years although it still exists on paper. The industry should be asked to reactivate the council. The Secretary of State should assist, if he can, to find a chairman of the calibre of Sir Jack Scamp who would be able to do the job.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the nature of the work in the motor industry and the monotony of the assembly line. We are entitled to look to the industry—I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler)—at least to show some signs of active study and the taking of steps towards change. The hon. Member for Bosworth referred to the new plant which is being constructed by Volvo and the calculations which have been made about the difference which the plant would make in terms of cost. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the calculation of an extra 10 per cent. on unit costs could well turn out to be a saving if it produced the improvement in labour relations which many people claim for it.

The difficulty has been described that throughout the industry generally, and particularly with the set-up of producing cars, as are most companies, with a sharper degree of competition than the Volvo Company faces, it is difficult to begin to experiment. The pressures all the time are to keep the assembly line going and, if possible, to speed up the line and to find ways of reducing costs fractionally. The whole atmosphere of the industry, and many other industries with assembly line production, is against experimentation. Yet there must be a movement and we must consider what the Government should do to promote that movement. I was glad to see the announcement a few days ago, which was made by the Secretary of State, that the right hon. Gentleman has appointed a tripartite steering group to promote research into problems of job satisfaction. I am sure that that is absolutely right.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House something about the resources that will be at the disposal of the steering group. It seems that the group will have a big job which must be done on an adequate scale. There is a need for a number of experiments to be launched as quickly as is practical, including experiments in the motor industry as well as many other industries.

We seem to be in a situation in which everyone is talking about the problems but in which few real experiments take place. Some companies—for example, Volvo, Olivetti and Saab and one or two other industries—are moving away from assembly line production. For the reasons which I have indicated there is a great danger that the process will be one of too little and too late whereas throughout the industrial world that movement is seen as a matter of great urgency. It may be that there will be a call for more Government intervention. We may be moving towards a period when Government intervention in industry will not be confined only to the traditional objectives of Government economic policy, but will include human problems.

This debate will have served a purpose if it has helped to stimulate further thought along the lines which I have mentioned. We are talking about problems which go well beyond one industry or country. We are talking about the possibility of human dignity in the conditions of a modern industrial society.

5.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan)

This has been a short but important debate and highly topical. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on initiating it. The motor car industry is very important to employment and to the whole of our domestic economy, as well as to our overseas trading position through its exports.

As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) pointed out, industrial relations is a very important subject to an industry, perhaps especially so to the motor industry, in which there are peculiar difficulties owing to size, complexity, competitiveness and the interdependence of the whole industry, so that trouble in one part can easily spread to another. The industry is also, as I have said, very critical to our export performance because of the effects on quality, which obviously suffers from bad industrial relations, bad management and bad union practices and delay in the production of spare parts, all of which factors determine our share of the world market.

Now, when the industry looks to be set fair for a sustained expansion and increasing output, a number of disputes have occurred which in total have led to a substantial loss of production and of earnings for many thousands of workers in the industry. Perhaps it is a mistake to try to draw general conclusions from any particular dispute in the industry. As has been pointed out, conditions vary throughout the industry.

It is also wrong to assume that there has over the last few months been any sudden or serious deterioration. I do not think one can draw that conclusion from the debate or from the facts. What has been happening is shown both by the figures of stoppages due to strikes and by the figures showing the import penetration of foreign cars into the domestic market as well as for the export performances of British manufactured cars, whether made by American-owned or British-owned companies.

I begin by looking at some of the facts and figures in relation to the markets reached by British cars made by American-owned companies. The marketing policy of the American-owned companies is to supply all markets which are profitable and in which they can establish a worthwhile demand. It is a matter of deep regret that the United States is not included in this definition for cars sold from this country, largely due to delivery delays and poor quality. One has to face the fact that this criticism is being made of British cars in many of the wealthy markets.

Over a fairly long span of recent years, the export proportion of Chrysler's total turnover was higher than the average in this country. The Ford proportion was well up to average and often on a greater scale than the average. Latterly, however, the history has not been so happy. In the United States, Chrysler's sales of the Cricket—a version of the Avenger—were halved in 1971–72, whereas the Japanese-made Colt, its equivalent, had expanded sales. This was due to customer preference in the United States. In the case of Ford, and also because of customer preference, all the Capris imported into the United States in 1970 came from Germany. With General Motors, Vauxhall was replaced by Opel first in the United States and then in Canada because of consumer dissatisfaction.

Mr. Carter

It would be difficult to sustain the right hon. Gentleman's argument that products made in this country by American-owned companies are not at the level of exports they should be simply because of quality. He would appear to be supporting the views of the Chrysler management. It is a matter of history that British Leyland, while not making up half of the car manufacturing capacity in this country, has consistently since the war exported between 50 and 60 per cent. of the total British motor exports. It would seem, therefore, judging by the last 20 to 25 years, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument cannot be supported.

Mr. Macmillan

I shall come to British Leyland. I would not dare not do so with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield in his place. Figures show that British Leyland's exports over recent years have been sustained far better. Triumph sales have risen from 15,000-plus in 1970 to 20,000; Austin sales dropped from 14,000 to 9,000; Jaguar sales dropped from 6,700 to 4,800.

British Leyland has kept up very well. All I am saying is that despite the record of both Ford and Chrysler in generally exporting a high proportion of their total turnover over the last few years, in more recent years there has been a decline of sales, particularly in the United States and Canada, of British cars by American-owned companies, and the reason given is customer dissatisfaction with both standards and delivery dates.

There is no particular policy among the American-owned companies to guide their markets one way or the other, contrary to what has been alleged. Their policy—and it applies to this country as much as to their German companies—is to sell cars, wherever they are made, where they can find a ready and profitable market.

I refer to another allegation made specifically about the Chrysler organisation in the debate. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) was guilty of gross exaggeration in his approach to this problem. It was alleged that it was the American management or the American end of the management which was responsible both for the type of industrial relations and, indeed, for the alleged threat contained in Mr. Hunt's letter to the employees. The letter was sent to all employees and said that he had no intention of recommending or approving further capital investment until the present trouble was resolved or production was resumed.

I do not know whether this was provocative or not. I do say that it was nothing to do with a deliberately-inspired controntation originating from Detroit. I have been personally assured that in these last few months the United Kingdom management alone has been responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the company in this country and has handled all industrial relations.

I am assured that the dispute was not of the company's making and nor was the position of the company in any way determined by Chrysler in Detroit. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) that the managing director's letter involves no threat whatever to the present level of the company's activities in this country at any of its plants.

One must admit that, whatever the causes of the recent industrial unrest, the loss of production and the failure to abide by agreements can hardly be taken by any management as a satisfactory basis for further commitment of large, future investment. In the first quarter of this year the company claimed to have lost, before the strike, 4,000 vehicles and £2.7 million in revenue because of disputes at Ryton alone. For the last six months the company claimed to have lost 17 per cent. of scheduled production at all its plants because of internal disputes and 25,000 vehicles as a result of industrial action generally.

The hon. Member for Rugby referred to this indirectly when he spoke of the great effort made by unions and management to deal with the situation. I think that was recognised in the letter written by the industrial relations director to the workpeople. The situation is that, apart from these figures which I have given to the House, there is a question of the penetration of foreign cars to this coun- try. We have to face the fact that in 1969 imports of cars accounted for 10.3 per cent. of the market. In successive years this percentage has risen to 14.1 per cent., 19.1 per cent., and in 1972 the last available figure showed that it was 23.2 per cent.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

Is there not a danger in reading too much into the import figures? Is there any country in the world in which the import percentage has dropped in that period?

Mr. Macmillan

I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. One should not read too much into this. There may be a question of consumer choice, people wanting something different. It may be a question of certain cars being more suitable to a particular market. One has to match that with the export figures. These have dropped rather considerably in the past year for cars and commercial vehicles. In part, this has been made up by the better performance of motor cycles and parts, which is no small section of the industry, and accessories.

Mr. William Price

I agree that the figure of 23 per cent. is high. I understand that this year it is running at 26.72 per cent. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure in France for the same period was 21 per cent., in Germany 25 per cent. and in Italy 28 per cent.? It seems strange that any Englishman who buys a foreign motor car should be thought to be some sort of traitor, whereas any foreigner who buys one of our cars is a delight. It does not add up. We all have the same problem.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I do not think we ought to ignore the message here. In the first quarter of this year, as compared with the same period last year, our exports have risen 23 per cent. That is very good. At the same time the imports of foreign cars have risen 48 per cent. That is not so good. While I do not want to read too much into that, it is a message we ignore at our peril.

Mr. Macmillan

I agree. I do not want to read too much into this. It has to be taken into account in a debate of this sort.

I do not want to weary the House with the stoppages that have taken place this year and the difficulties which the industry is facing. This came out well enough in the debate. It is only fair to remind the House that many strikes are of short duration, of two or three days, and affect a relatively small number of people. As the hon. Member for Rugby pointed out, even a small stoppage in this industry can have a damaging effect. The strike of 77 plant operators at the Cowley assembly plant, an unofficial strike on a grading claim, led to the laying-off of 12,000 other workers and halted all production for three weeks. It began on 1st June, the national officers reached agreement with the company by 13th June and there was another week's delay before their recommendation was accepted on the shop floor. We have to recognise, too, that many of our major assemblers are vulnerable to interruptions of supplies, to stoppages in component manufacture, and in the services given to them by such organisations as the road hauliers.

A great deal was said about the problems of the assembly line. I do not want to deny or belittle those but we must recognise that an analysis of the reasons for many stoppages in this industry shows that many disputes arise which have nothing to do with assembly line work. It may be that there is a spill-over of discontent. For the record, I say that there are many disputes which have no apparent or direct connection with difficulties on the assembly line.

It is important to recognise that, because at the moment the connection between poor industrial relations and lack of job satisfaction is being much publicised in the Press and elsewhere. We must recognise that this is not the sole cause of the difficulties. It is undoubtedly a considerable one. We saw it last year for example in the Lordstown dispute involving General Motors in the United States and we have seen the serious attempts being made in Sweden by Saab and Volvo. All I wanted to say is that, whatever work is done on job satisfaction, it will not be a panacea for solving overnight all the difficulties of the motor-car industry.

It is, particularly with this industry, rather easy to over-simplify and perhaps wish to forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth reminded us, that the problems of assembly line working exist in other industries. I am certain that we all need to be concerned, and the House has properly shown its concern this afternoon, about the problems of monotony and frustration in industry.

This is primarily a matter for the management and the unions concerned. Where jobs are quite clearly seen to affect the attitude of life and work of the people who do them, where they can be seen—and the evidence is in the absentee figures, the labour turnover figures and the dispute figures—to reduce people's self-esteem and weaken and frustrate their sense of responsibility, it is very much the rôle of management and unions to study how they can make changes so as to produce better working conditions.

I will not pretend that these are not extremely complex problems or that there is a set pattern of solutions which can be applied in every industry or every part of the same industry. The differences are such, both between different jobs and different occupations and between the different people doing them, as to require individual solutions. The Government are taking account of this. We have set up a tripartite steering group under the chairmanship of the Minister of State to study what can be done.

I am anxious that this should be a practical steering group, conducting experiments and getting things started. I cannot tell the House what resources will be devoted to it because this is largely a matter which will have to be discussed by the group at its first meeting. It depends very much on what the various management and unions concerned think can be done in a practical way in different industries. For a proper approach across our industrial scene it is important to get the maximum amount of information as quickly as possible. It is necessary to have this tripartite approach to get the involvement of the unions and management under the guidance of a Government-chaired steering group and to be able to bring in the research and other resources of my Department.

I have already suggested at the Council of Ministers that this is a matter very much for Community involvement and for further work on a Community basis. Obviously this is not something that this country can do sensibly in isolation. Admittedly the problems in Europe are not absolutely the same. In some European countries problems are caused by the use of migrant labour. Broadly speaking, this work is not now being done by indigenous labour. This is a realm of social policy which we are committed by the summit communique to deal with on a European basis and probably, because of the pressures of competition, on an international basis. As I said, this is a matter for unions and management.

I turn now to the general question of industrial relations. To be successful, any changes that are introduced to increase job satisfaction, must be founded upon a relationship between management and unions which enables them together to identify and solve the problems with which they are both concerned. This requires mutual trust and a recognition by both sides of their mutual interdependence. When that trust does not exist, the first priority must be to build it up. Therefore, an increase in job satisfaction is likely to be a continuous process dependent upon improving industrial relations generally.

Recent events have shown the need within the motor car industry for a more coherent and sensible pattern of industrial relations, not only for job satisfaction but for the running of the industry, the maintenance of full employment and the successful development of the industry. Considerable efforts have been made in recent years by employers and trade unions to avoid potentially damaging disputes and to seek their early resolution when they cannot be avoided. These efforts have been made not only in the BLMC organisation or at Longbridge but by the industry generally.

Central to this is the joint progress that has been made to more rational pay structures. The reform of payment systems in the industry by agreement—and this is still continuing—is leading to the removal of many potential dispute issues and providing much greater stability of earnings. Progress has not always been easy. Fundamental changes in payment systems have not always been achieved without conflict. Nevertheless, employers and unions have been able to reach agreement over much of the industry, and this offers a greater degree of certainty for the future.

I note what my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth and Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) suggested in relation to the policies to follow stage 2. That is a matter which is being discussed with the TUC and the CBI.

The industry has significantly increased the management resources devoted to personnel and industrial relations matters and—perhaps even more important—in recent years industrial relations has been increasingly recognised by companies as having a crucial rôle throughout the enterprise, including the recognition of the importance of industrial relations at the very top. A great deal of attention has also been given to procedural arrangements. For example, British Leyland concluded a new agreement last year for the resolution of disputes and the avoidance of industrial action.

The typical strike in the motor industry still takes place without notice and often without the knowledge of full-time trade union officers, despite jointly agreed arrangements for dealing with such issues, and strikes often persist, unfortunately, despite the efforts of full-time trade union officials. This was indeed the case with Perkins.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) that the Perkins dispute is not about the current pay offer for a new annual settlement. This has proved acceptable to the unions. The dispute is about a commitment to parity of earnings in the longer term. My Department has been closely in touch with the company and the unions, and we were able to set up a meeting on 16th June. Unfortunately we were unable to get an agreed solution between the parties, but we arranged a working party to look into the whole question. What lay at issue between the two sides were the terms of reference of the working party. To try to resolve that issue we had a further meeting on Thursday 21st June. The union official was able to recommend agreed proposals to the shop stewards as providing a settlement, but they were unacceptable to the stewards. The dispute therefore continues. The conciliation services of my Department are readily available to the parties if some new basis for discussion can be found.

This difference is not a pay problem, nor a low pay problem. The earnings of workers at the Peterborough plant average between £41 and £42 and the current offer would provide earnings of £38 to £48 a week. The company has made it clear that it accepts that regional wage differentials will not remain fixed and that it cannot here and now commit itself in future to give parity at one place to match the outcome of wage negotiations hitherto unresolved and unsettled at another place. The company added that the unions cannot undertake to do that either.

The problem is confused by claims made by the shop stewards that three of the company's other plants will expect to benefit from anything agreed at Peterborough, and the claim by the shop stewards at the Coventry plant that they will be seeking to preserve their differentials. I am hopeful that these difficult problems may be resolved when the Massey-Ferguson NJC meets tomorrow and, in view of that meeting, I would rather say no more about it.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for his kind tribute to the work of my officers in the Perkins dispute. The hon. Member for Rugby and the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), on the other hand, criticised me and the Department for our non-intervention in the Chrysler dispute. The hon. Member for Binningham, Northfield showed a little more appreciation of the difficulties. The processes of conciliation and inquiry can be successful only when there is some possibility of a meeting point being found between the parties in dispute. It is always a matter of fairly fine judgment to know when intervention is likely to be acceptable and useful or likely to prompt a settlement or return to work.

Our judgment in the Chrysler dispute was that that point was not reached at any stage before the company and initially the shop stewards and later the full-time district officers of the unions concerned found a basis for direct discussion. Despite many public utterances and what we all read in the newspapers, the company and the unions were in contact for some time before a settlement was reached. Therefore, I do not think that any approach by my Department would have got us anywhere until such time as the meeting had already virtually been set up.

Mr. William Price

The curious thing about that argument is that it was an intervention not by the Minister but by the Lord Mayor of Coventry that brought the two sides together. That led me to believe that management and men were willing to talk.

Mr. Macmillan

That came after the initial contact between the unions. In the light of my knowledge of what was going on, an intervention did not seem to be necessary. At that stage I do not think that we would have been able to add to anything that was done and at a later stage do not think that it would have worked.

The right hon. Member for East Ham, North gave an account of some aspects of the dispute and suggested that I should make the Government position clear. I do not think there is very much to make clear about the Government's position. The strike of 4,500 production workers at Ryton began on 31st May. Initially it was over a claim that 600 workers in the body in white shop should be paid for an hour and a half lost when the management stopped the assemply line on day shift on 24th May. Central to the dispute was the poor quality of work produced during this shift and there was no difference of view between management and union that the standard of work was unacceptable.

The difference is over whether it was due solely to management, poor work by the labour force or poor materials. The company has admitted that there was a shortage of labour on the line and reduced the speed of the track to match the number of workers. The company has denied faulty or substandard panels, as alleged by the shop stewards. It will be difficult to find out the exact rights and wrongs of the dispute, but, whatever the reason, the shop itself became congested with faulty bodies and management took the view that production could not continue.

When charges are made that this was a deliberately sought confrontation by the management—and I see no evidence of this whatever—the House must reflect on the fact that the night shift which followed immediately the day shift where a stoppage took place worked quite normally and the quality was satisfactory.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth referred to holiday pay. This at one stage was part of the disagreement. The company's agreements with unions provide that holiday pay is paid only for a holiday where employees attend for work on the day before the holiday and a day immediately after the holiday. It was in conformity with this agreement that holiday pay was withheld from some employees at Ryton.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the company's refusal to negotiate before a return to work. He commented on the propriety and wisdom of such a course. The strike was unconstitutional under the agreement as well as unofficial. The joint procedure agreement which the company has with the unions provides for negotiations at various levels on any issue or grievance before industrial action is taken.

On many occasions in the past—there have been 42 strikes at Ryton this year—the company has negotiated even though the agreement has not been observed. On this occasion at the beginning it said it would not. Despite the insistence that there should be a return to work, discussions took place on 15th June between the company and senior stewards on the basis of which a return to work might be agreed and the issues resolved. These discussions, which lasted 10 hours, failed to reach a solution. A further meeting took place on 20th June which involved full-time district officials, and after many hours' negotiation the company made a number of proposals for settlement. These included payment of all holiday pay claimed, agreement to negotiate new special procedure agreements to deal with similar situations in future, and an agreement to pay for the week in question to all employees not directly involved in the dispute and to 250 workers on the shift who were regarded as being responsible for the incidents. For the remaining 350 workers on the same shift the company offered to pay them the guarantee subject to the joint agreement being operated over a three-month period. These proposals were not acceptable to the union. It insisted that the guarantee should be paid to all workers on the shift immediately. On this basis agreement was reached on Friday and a return to work at Ryton began this morning and full production will be planned by tomorrow.

The hon. Member for Coventry, North made some rather scathing remarks about strike-breaking methods. I repeat what I have already said, that such action taken during the dispute was taken as a result of a decision of the British management and not under any pressure from Detroit. I do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks about these "wicked American strikebreaking methods" because, although he alleged violence, his allegation was almost irrelevant. If violence has been used it is illegal, and to the extent that these incidents involve allegations of criminal acts the police are already making the fullest possible inquiries and it would be wrong for me to comment on those allegations while inquiries are continuing and while consideration may be given to possible prosecution.

I am sure I speak for the House as a whole in condemning any incidents of violence wherever or whenever they have occurred, or whoever was responsible, pickets or otherwise. If violence did occur at Coventry it is to be deplored, as much as is any alleged harassment of pickets at Peterborough. These are matters where the law provides sanctions and must be enforced.

Mr. Prentice

On one point after another the Secretary of State keeps giving his reasons for not making any comment. Is he going to make no comment at all on the situation? We all know that in the last few weeks right-wing newspapers such as the Economist, the Daily Mail and others have condemned the handling of the dispute by the Chrysler management. It has been a costly and unnecessary dispute. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should make some comment on the crazy procedures which have allowed the situation to result in such an appalling waste of resources.

Mr. Macmillan

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, my comment is that this is not a dispute in which anybody can claim credit. If there were faults in the management, we must remember that the stoppage itself was unconstitutional and unofficial. We must also bear in mind that some £10 million worth of production has been lost and individual workers have lost up to £150 in wages, but I hope that the official settlement will lead to an improvement in the general situation.

I know it has been said in the Press and elsewhere that the settlement was a climb-down by the management. To some extent that is true, but it is also a recognition of the danger of continuing in this sort of situation by both management and unions.

The final settlement includes what I hope will be important: a joint commitment to the quality of the product on which both the company and its employees are finally equally dependent; a joint commitment to negotiate a new procedure agreement to deal with any future eventuality of this kind; and a joint commitment to better maintain the observance of existing agreements. I hope that this is a happy augury for the future in establishing a greater degree of certainty for the employees and the management alike.

In the course of the debate we have heard a number of positive ideas. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough appears to believe in compulsory arbitration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth believes in compulsory consultation. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North wants to reconstitute the Motor Industry Joint Council, including the sub-committee which would conduct inquiries into disputes or into the situation in any company with the agreement of both sides. The last time that these arrangements were used was in 1970. This is the industry's body. It is not a Government body. If we could find the right chairman, it may be that this is one way that this could be developed.

The hon. Member for Rugby wanted a full and general inquiry into the whole industry, a comprehensive study of industrial relations, and recommendations for improvement. I share the doubts expressed about this by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, though not about the need for some inquiry at different stages into different parts of the industry. Like the right hon. Gentleman I doubt whether it is possible in such a complicated, complex, interdependent and difficult industry to mount an enormous inquiry which would take a very long time to report and could, at the end of getting bogged down in detail, come up with generalisations which would not necessarily be all that valuable in the circumstances.

One has to consider as many ways of improving the industry as possible. I should not rule out individual references to the CIR after full consultation with the unions and managements concerned. The CIR has already one from Rubery-Owen. One should not ignore the effects of what the industry generally is doing and I hope will continue to do. In turn the Government are trying to deal with job satisfaction nationally, in Europe and on an international basis at the ILO in Geneva. Similarly we are considering a deeper study of worker participation and the need to involve people more closely in matters affecting their working lives and the progress of their firms.

The ways in which various advances can be made, as has been recognised in speeches from both sides of the House, have to be discussed fully with managements and unions. But primarily they are matters for managements for discussion with unions rather than matters for legislation or other Government action.

Everything that has been said implies the recognition by both managements and unions that men and women are not parts of the machinery and cannot be treated as such, and equally that participation cannot be effected unless the participators are responsible and self-disciplined in their consultations.

In the various contributions to the debate from both sides, that is the lesson that this House asks the motor industry to learn. In return the industry is entitled to ask for greater understanding from this House.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I mean this as no disrespect to the Chair, but I cannot help wondering, since this is supposed to be a Private Members' debate, how it is that Front Bench speeches have been allowed to take one hour and five minutes of our time, especially when the Secretary of State has said nothing at all.

The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) said he did not think that the union was taking sufficient initiative or showing sufficient concern. That was the gist of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

However, the whole point of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), my hon. Friend for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and myself is that it is precisely because the union took the initiative in February that there was a full-scale investigation of industrial relations at the Ryton plant. To turn round, as Gilbert Hunt has done, and accuse the union of not showing a responsible attitude is to neglect the facts of the situation. It was as a result of union initiative in February that this very detailed investigation of amendments required in supervision, inspection and the duties of shop stewards was undertaken. It was the union which took the initiative and produced the report. I am bound to say that as a result of that union initiative the company has done precious little. Anyone going round the Ryton or Stoke plants and trying to trace the results of that investigation on the management's side will find it very difficult.

I do not feel that my constituents, many of whom work at the Ryton plant, need any of the apologists for their behaviour who have appeared in the national Press during the past fortnight. There have been a number of Press comments about monotony on the assembly line and about work on the "track" being arduous and tough. No one quarrels with those comments. However, this dispute is not about life on the track being tough or monotonous. It is about the management trying to introduce a completely new principle into an agreement which was not specified in that agreement without any consultation with the union.

If this was a dispute which could be traced directly to assembly line conditions, as one or two industrial correspondents have implied, it might be a different matter. But here we have a dispute which, if it followed the customary pattern, could be settled by calling in the union's district officer and settling it. Many of us cannot understand why it has not been settled in the time-honoured manner and why the company had to go to such lengths.

I remind hon. Members that the industrial relations director, Mr. Peter Griffiths, wrote to plant employees on 21st May congratulating them on their record in past weeks. Mr. Griffiths was referring to exactly the same period as Mr. Gilbert Hunt in his letter of 5th June saying: I feel it important to remind you of the appalling industrial record that the Ryton plant set during the first four months of this financial year. If the industrial relations director and the present chairman of the company are talking about the same period in totally different terms, one has cause to wonder what kind of communications exist at the top in the company.

This dispute was especially regrettable in view of the fact that the union side was prepared to talk at any time. Successive attempts were made by union officials, shop stewards and convenors to get talks goings. Had it not been for the fact that the company was adamant in its refusal to talk, the dispute would have been settled very much more quickly.

We in Coventry are not used to all these tactics, including the possible use of helicopters to break pickets. We are not accustomed to tactics whereby spy cameras are employed to take photographs of those on picket lines outside factory gates. Certainly we are not used to tactics whereby some pretty thuggish characters are employed to cross picket lines. I hope that the Secretary of State will maintain contact with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask him about the characters of some of those who have been hired to break picket lines.

Some of those who are alleged to have crossed picket lines and who were paid by the company to do so are not the kind of people whom either the Home Secretary or myself would normally associate with peaceful picketing. We have had a great deal of emphasis from the Tory Party about the need for more peaceful and useful picketing. I can hardly call the employment of thugs to break picket lines for large sums peaceful picketing or conducive to peaceful picketing.

I wonder, too, about the record of the Assistant Chief Constable of the Warwickshire and Coventry force in taking part in talks with the company on whether the picket breaking tactics should take place. When the assistant chief constable gave a news conference in Coventry last Thursday he referred to talks which had taken place between the police and the company as to when the picket breaking should take place.

As those who were to break the picket lines were obviously being hired to do so, and as obviously they were outside transport contractors hired for the purpose, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Home Secretary exactly what was the rôle of the police in taking part in those discussions with the company. I have already written to the Home Secretary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to have a word with him.

The significant thing in this dispute was that all the Press and other media—even the Coventry Evening Telegraph, which we in Coventry cannot normally count upon to be sympathetic to trade union matters—roundly condemned the company for not participating in talks. Those of us who were involved in the background or intimately with the knowledge of the dispute could not think of a reason why the company was so adamant about refusing to talk. I repeat that this was the kind of dispute that would normally have been settled in the time-honoured tradition, by getting both sides round the table at short notice.

It is worth making some mention of the remarks made over the weekend by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Most of us do not normally attach much importance to some of the stuff with which the hon. Gentleman comes out. However, it is important to note that the hon. Gentleman said that Chrysler had capitulated to union pressure which would once more result in shoddy workmanship.

The 16 hours of talks which took place in Coventry at the beginning of last week and the talks which took place on Friday of last week—about 20 hours of negotiations—were all about quality of work. It is significant to note also, as the Secretary of State himself said, that a formula concerning the quality of work is enshrined in the agreement which was reached.

For the hon. Gentleman to come out, as he did in South Worcestershire over the weekend in one of those inevitable Press statements with the photograph on the television, with the statement that Chrysler's had capitulated once more to shoddy workmanship was a great travesty of the truth and ignored the formula which the company and the union, nego- tiating in Coventry on Friday, produced. The negotiations about the quality of the work and the dispute over the quality of work were an essential feature of the bargain.

I differ from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North and for Rugby in their call for a national inquiry into the motor car industry. I know a fair number of people on both sides in this dispute in Coventry. I cannot think of anybody I have met over the past month who has been asking for such an inquiry.

If the Secretary of State cares to make his own inquiries on both sides, he will find it hard to discover anybody either on the union side or on the management side who wanted an inquiry, even when the dispute was at its height.

What is wanted is a little more understanding of the pressures which occur on the shop floor and in the rather complex chain of human relationships which works up from the line to the steward, to the convener, to the shop stewards' committee and ultimately to the bargaining table. It would be far more sensible if we could achieve a little more understanding of how that delicate chain of human relations works, instead of—on the one side —condemning shop stewards as unthinking, uncaring militants, or calling for a national inquiry.

Reference has been made also to the need to call in some of the previous members of the Motor Industry Joint Council. Although I do not wish to be derogatory about the excellent work done in the past by people like Sir Jack Scamp, I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and the Secretary of State to realise that the whole essence about a settlement reached as the Chrysler settlement was reached is that, when the two parties are on the spot, if anything goes wrong with the agreement again, the parties can be quickly brought to the bargaining table.

As a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union I believe that tribute should be paid to the district secretary of that union at Coventry, Bill Lapworth, for the valuable rôle he played in these negotiations. The fact that he is on the spot and can be called to the table again if anything goes wrong with the agreement is a testimony to the validity and lasting quality of agreements which can be reached between management and unions.

The one great pity about the result of all this is that precisely such an agreement was available to the company almost a month ago. If the company had agreed to go to the bargaining table almost a month ago, it could have had pretty well the same agreement; because the same week that the hour-and-a-half and the off-the-clock dispute was in essence the company was being offered by the union more or less the same terms.

Many people have been talking about the number of cars that are lost through strikes. Every time the clock stops or the track stops because of a strike there is a great outcry becaue of the number of cars lost.

I should like to hear something at some time, particularly from Conservative Members, about the number of cars which are lost because the components are not there to complete them or about the number of times that the track must stop because the management cannot get the components there in sufficient supply.

I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates that one of the effects of the transfer from a piece-work system to a measured day-work system is that, whereas, under the piece-work system, the workers themselves have an incentive to ensure that all the components come on to the track, with a measured day-work system the guarantee of continuity of components coming on to the track is entirely a management matter.

In quite a few car-making factories which are now operating systems of measured day work, the management does not seem to be capable of ensuring that components and supplies come on to the track in the right quantity. A typical comment from a typical shop steward in any car assembly line where measured day work operates is that he feels that he is being some kind of unpaid "progress chaser" for management. Because the management cannot ensure that the parts come on to the line in sufficient quality and quantity, often, though it is now a management responsibility, it is the union which must undertake the rôle.

There has been talk this afternoon about the quality of work. No names, no pack drill, but anybody who knows anything about the Ryton plant will confirm that crosses tend to be put on panels and bodies by inspection because they are alleged to be damaged and then, when supervision comes along, the crosses are rubbed off again. This kind of thing is happening not only in the "body in white" section but in other sections.

In this connection it is worth remembering what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said about the management's overriding need, it would appear, to get as many cars as possible off the track. At the Ryton plant there seems to be every pressure to get at least 50 cars an hour off the track. This is the pressure under which the workers have been working recently.

I hope that the Secretary of State will try to keep the problem in perspective. Anybody who knows the Ryton plant will admit that there have been difficulties in industrial relations recently. That was why in February union district officials took the initiative and went round the plant and produced their own report. I only wish that this dispute and many others could have been solved more quickly in the time-honoured British tradition. Simply by getting the management to come to the table and to talk about these matters we could have had the same settlement a month ago as we achieved in Coventry last Friday.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond (Bolton, West)

I hope that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks. Time is very much against me. However, when he followed me on an earlier occasion he made some extremely derogatory and ill-informed remarks about firms in my constituency.

This is not so much a matter of requiring an inquiry into industrial relations in the motor industry as into industrial relations in certain areas of the country which include those parts where there are sections of the motor industry.

Just after lunch today I was discussing this matter with the United Kingdom chief executive of a multi-national company. He asked which constituency I represented. When I told him that I came from Bolton, he said "If only we had more land for our plant at Bolton we could expand it more than we can, because industrial relations are so good in that town. Industrial relations in Bolton are good because the people are sensible." He was not talking about management or workers on the shop floor, but about the people. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) will confirm that, because, having elected us, they have proved it.

The job of the Chrysler Corporation is to make and sell motor cars. It has been doing neither for the last few weeks. I suggest that, from the public relations aspect that has emerged from this situation, its cars will be more difficult to sell because the public will not have confidence in the quality control. The whole matter has been concerned with quality control, and people are suggesting that they should look more carefully at the cars being produced by Chrysler. That is not in the interests of anybody in the Chrysler Corporation from the chairman of the United Kingdom board down to the most newly joined apprentice.

Therefore, I suggest it is time for me to repeat what I have been preaching for so long. We should get rid of the term "both sides of industry". That phrase is beloved by the Opposition, by trade union officials and by employers' federations. However, I hate it. It suggests that there are two people poles apart who should be working together. I like the phrase "social partners" which we get from the Common Market.

We should try to instil throughout industry that it is time to communicate from the boardroom to the shop floor, to talk regularly and, if necessary, to stop production while talks go on. I have suggested this to several personnel managers and directors of manufacturing companies in this country. If one mentions it to anybody in the motor industry, their response is "But that would mean having to stop the track." I suggest that it would be a good idea to stop the track for a quarter of an hour or half an hour every day whilst talks go on to avoid the stoppages that have been taking place.

The management of Chrysler has shown itself to be incredibly inept in the way that it has handled the dispute. It has cried "Wolf". It has said "Thus far, and no further." It has set itself up as an immovable object meeting an irresistible force. Then it went further. After that it can hardly be credible as a management. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was the British management, not the American management. Fair enough. If the British management is like that, I suggest that someone else should be obtained who can do the job better.

There has been criticism of the track. It is suggested that the Common Market might be able to negotiate the track out of the motor industry. I suggest that it is a management problem to organise the factory, to get the best production at the best possible price from everybody, and that it can do that if everybody in the factory is happy and is getting job satisfaction. I do not believe that the present system of management in that sector of the motor industry is even approaching efficiency.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Terry Davis (Bromsgrove)

I have a double interest in this matter. Before being elected to this House I worked for Chrysler as a manager, and I represent a constituency in which many people are employed at the Longbridge factory of British Leyland and many others work for smaller companies which supply the motor industry.

The Secretary of State failed to deal with some of the points which have been made by some of my hon. Friends. I refer particularly to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) about the multinationals. My hon. Friend was absolutely right. Part of the problem of the motor industry is a sense of remoteness. However, I think he strayed from the main point when he referred to foreign multinationals, because we have disputes in British Leyland, which is a British multinational. There is a sense of remoteness in British Leyland as in Chrysler, Ford and Vauxhall.

We have similar problems in other ways. British Leyland is opening or buying factories on the Continent of Europe. Its motives are to make profits for British Leyland. This is not necessarily in the interests of British people as a whole and certainly not necessarily in the interests of the employees of British Leyland. It is not concerned to increase the wages or the number of jobs for British Leyland employees in this country. Indeed, it is aggravating one of the basic problems in the industry, which is a sense of insecurity. The motor industry has a history not only of lay-offs when there are disputes elsewhere in industry but of redundancies. When we add remoteness, the sense of insecurity and the boredom to which reference has already been made in the debate, it is not surprising that we get trouble.

It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to make the valid point that not everybody works on the assembly line. The track sets the tone for the industry. The problem is not the track itself, but the division of labour. There is intensive specialisation in the motor industry. The track makes it worse because it adds pace to the specialisation.

The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) contributed a great deal to the debate when he referred to job enrichment. The problem is how to get job satisfaction and enrichment. I doubt whether we can achieve it with the present emphasis on specialisation and making as much money as possible. The emphasis in the industry is on making as big a profit as possible, and this has its effect on management and employees.

Another aspect of the problem is the widespread suspicion held by people who work in the industry about the management. The Secretary of State said that he did not believe that the recent dispute at Chrysler arose because of ownership by the American corporation. He said that the decisions were being taken by the British management. The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point that many of the directors and executives of Chrysler (UK) are North Americans. There is no need for decisions to be taken in Detroit. The Americans are here taking the decisions. It is not simply blaming people for their nationality. In many ways, I prefer an efficient American to an incompetent Briton. One reason why Chrysler took over Rootes was its poor British management. The problem is that we have developed in this country, especially in the motor industry, the international executive. It is not that he holds a British or an American passport, but that he is here today and gone tomorrow—gone not to a different factory in the United Kingdom, but to a different company in a different country, that different company belonging to the same multinational giant.

The feeling of insecurity, remoteness and boredom is aggravated for people in the motor industry by the fact that they cannot trust or depend on the managers being here tomorrow.

Mr. William Price

I wish to be helpful, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn