HC Deb 25 April 1984 vol 58 cc857-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

12.40 am
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I am pleased to have the opportunity——

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the official business which was distributed on the Government Benches, and to which we have received no correction, the subject was not the subject that is on the Order Paper today; it related to glue sniffing. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule whether it is proper to have a debate on this fresh subject, which has been changed at very short notice, without proper consultation with the House authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

As I understand the position, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) changed the subject in accordance with the rules of the House.

Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the point of order was raised after the Adjournment was moved, is it not only natural justice that the time taken by the interventions of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and myself should not be counted in the half hour allocated for the Adjournment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am afraid that I am bound by the rules of the House, and I cannot extend the time.

Mr. Janner

I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has sought to raise a spurious point of order to prevent the House from having even this half hour to debate this vital subject. Not only did the House have the usual 48 hours' notice, but the subject was changed even before the Easter recess. Therefore, it was at least four times as long as the usual time. I do not intend to waste any more time on that.

I ask the House to consider the disgraceful situation created by the high unemployment, which has resulted in people all over the country accepting low wages and being prepared to work in scandalous conditions which, to a very large extent, are the direct result of Government policy. They are the direct result of the Government having allowed a situation to arise where unemployment overall is at a dreadful level, and where, in the city of Leicester, it is in real terms 20 per cent. and in parts of my constituency as high as 60 per cent.

It is a situation in which the Government have seen fit to repeal a schedule to the Employment Act 1975 which enabled people to raise their wages above slave labour levels if others in the same area and industry were earning better wages, and in which the Government have seen fit to demand and to proclaim that they intend to repeal the wages council regulations. In addition, the Government are continually cutting the provision for the Health and Safety Executive so that the number of inspectors able to look into the problem is diminishing, just as the need for the inspectorate increases.

This is a national problem which applies throughout the country, irrespective of the sort of people who live in particular areas or how long they have been in the country. It is a problem that affects, above all, textile industries, as indeed the problem of sweatshops has throughout the centuries and many lands. It concerns pay and conditions, and the problem has been highlighted in the city of Leicester in a campaign by the Leicester Mercury, on which I congratulate that newspaper. The campaign has lit a spotlight in one area, the light from which should illuminate the sort of misery which is being suffered in so many parts of the country as a result of the conditions in which people are being forced to work.

The dangerous conditions include wooden buildings which are fire traps, machines which are improperly guarded, breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and breaches of the regulations made under that Act. People are prepared to accept a disgracefully low level of wages only in conditions in which they are desperate to have any sort of work. Outworkers are more affected than any other workers. Under the headline "Outworkers 'boost' company profits", today's Financial Times states that homeworkers and outworkers are contributing to the profitability and investment plans of companies using them. It goes on to state, however: None the less, as the research makes clear, outworkers' wages and conditions are generally inferior to those of permanent staff. It says rates of pay were never higher than those for inworkers, except to some extent in the mainly distributive and retail sector where wages come under Wages Councils …."— which the Government propose to abolish— and yet outworkers were typically not offered the benefits. such as sick pay and holiday pay, that are now standard benefits for employees. It is scarcely surprising that in a city such as Leicester, where the outworkers' campaign has been running for so long and where there are so many outworkers and homeworkers, conditions are worse than in many other parts of the country. That is the fault of the Government and of the conditions in which sweatshops flourish.

Instead of taking steps to deal with the problem, the Minister has sent me the most fatuous letter to appear on my desk in 13 years of serving my constituents. As criticism of the campaign, he says: It may not be in the interests of the low paid to raise their pay levels if as a result their jobs are destroyed. That argument is worthy of those who opposed the efforts of William Wilberforce to get rid of slavery in this country. I wish that I had time to read the letter in full, but I ask the Minister to reconsider the terms in which he saw fit to denigrate and attack the campaign by the Leicester Mercury and those of us who are trying to improve conditions in the city.

I have a letter from Mr. Day, the principal inspector of factories in Leicester, in which he says: The 3 inspectors at the Leicester Office are responsible for approximately 3,000 factories. It is clearly impossible for an inspectorate of that number to carry that sort of burden and to do the job in the way required at any time, least of all in present circumstances when the number of unsatisfactory premises is growing. I ask the Minister to renounce the awful policy under which resources for the inspectorate are being cut and the number of inspectors reduced. On the contrary, will he now assure the House that the number of inspectors will be increased, especially in cities such as Leicester where the difficulties are of such nightmare proportions?

I was pleased to receive a letter from the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers, as so many of these conditions exist in that and other sectors of the textile industry. We have the full support of the trade unions, not just because in a decent society the conditions achieved by trade unions must not be undercut by what amounts to slave labour but because the unions are and always have been extremely concerned about the conditions in which people in their industry are forced to work. The district secretary, Mr. Kilsby, says that there is a desperate need to appoint more Health & Safety Inspectors to carry out a special campaign to check into these Companies"— those not providing proper conditions. He continues: During visits to these type of Companies I have observed children wandering around in the factory, which is obviously against the Factory Act and I also feel that unless something is done in the very near future there is a distinct possibility of a fire which could result in loss of life—which has already happened in a clothing factory in London. He wishes the campaign every success.

As the Leicester Mercury headline puts it, Fire insurance nightmare hits 40 city firms. It is the multiple-occupancy firms that the inspectors cannot reach, but instead of more fire officers there are fewer, instead of more inspectors there are fewer, and instead of more effort being made to deal with the problem there is less, at a time when there is the most awful unemployment and the most dreadful situations of the kind that my father fought against in the 1930s when he was Member of Parliament for Whitechapel and St. Georges. There has been a reversion to the days of sweatshops, but instead of taking the necessary action the Government are doing the opposite.

I have correspondence from the Leicester and District Trades Council, from which I shall have time to quote briefly. It says: We … support the recent moves to improve locally the fire service, and increase the number of fire prevention officers, as proposed by the Labour Group on the Leicestershire County Council. This was blocked by the Tory and Liberal groups. There have been several fires within the textile industry in Leicester recently. When will there be a major tragedy? We pray to God that there will be none, but, if there is, the burden that rests upon the Minister and the Government is a mighty one. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am disturbing the Minister. I ask him to respond to this plea on behalf of all of us. Within the city of Leicester itself and then elsewhere, every effort should be made to increase the resources available.

What do we ask the Government to do, both locally and nationally? First, we need a full national inquiry, so that the circumstances can be properly revealed. They are not easy to unveil. They are cloaked in fear—the fear of those who do not wish to lose their jobs, however wretched those jobs may be and however unsafe the surroundings in which they work.

It is not easy to acquire the evidence. The Government should hold an inquiry in order to unveil the truth. I trust that, instead of playing down the circumstances as he saw fit to do in his letter, the Minister will recognise the reality of the problem and undertake to the House that he will do whatever lies in his power to see that an inquiry is held.

Secondly, I ask for the resources for the inspectorates which have so far been refused, or reduced when they should have been increased. In particular, I have the factory inspectorate in mind. The city of Leicester should not have only three inspectors to look after 3,000 factories.

Thirdly, I ask the Government to reintroduce legislation such as that which they saw fit to repeal in the schedule which gave the right to compare the wages obtained by people in the same area with the wages of those in similar work in that area who are paid at a much lower rate. The unfair competition of slave labour is unfair to those who have jobs and are properly looked after and fully unionised, but it is especially unfair to those who work in those conditions. The Government should reintroduce the fair wages resolution, which, extraordinarily, they saw fit to repeal, even though that all-party resolution, introduced in time of war, had been retained by all parties in time of peace.

I ask the Government to renounce tonight their intention to repeal the wages council regulations when it becomes possible, in the international arena, for them to do so lawfully. It is a vast worry that the last remaining bulwark against such exploitation in times of hardship should be removed by the Government in the name of creating more jobs by lowering the levels of pay. That is the suggestion in the Minister's letter. Paying lower wages will not create more jobs. Everyone's livelihood will become worse as levels of pay, standards of living and the level of resources made available to inspectorates gradually fall.

I ask the Minister to treat the matter seriously. I place the responsibility squarely upon the Government and upon those who have seen fit to remove resources when they should be increased. However, within the city of Leicester this is not a party matter. The newspaper which has raised it has never been accused of being a Labour paper. Leicester city council is an excellent Labour-controlled council, but I do not know of any member of that council or any party who has opposed this view. It has the support of all sections of the Leicester community.

Leicester has a population of only a quarter of a million people, but the fear, the worry, and the resurgence of sweatshops are national, not local, matters.

The hon. Member for Harborough saw fit to leave the Chamber immediately after he had raised his point of order. Even with that interruption, I am grateful for having had an opportunity to raise this matter. I trust that the Minister will give a clear promise to do what is in his power to improve matters.

12.53 am
Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

I am glad to have a few moments in which to make one or two general points about the principle of low pay. One can support robust economic policy and believe that vigorous activity produces dynamic results, without necessarily endorsing harshness in employment or the exploitation of individuals.

If that is one's view—it is mine—it does not follow that a person who supports a tough approach to competition believes that it can be done at any cost in terms of human discomfort or individual distress, especially if they are weaker members of the community. Nevertheless, every team game must have an umpire to see that there is fair play, and similarly every economy needs a Government to act as a referee.

The point of general principle that I want to underline is that while we are right to seek a more flexible, efficient and adaptable labour market, and while we are right to note that higher pay probably means fewer jobs, we would be wrong to dismantle the institutions or measures that exist, or should exist, to protect the disadvantaged in our work force. I think of those groups who are usually said to be disadvantaged—women and younger people.

It is extremely helpful that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has raised this subject, although, of course, I know nothing of the conditions in his constituency. He is right to insist that a better managed and more productive economy is no repayment for a society without a human face.

12.56 am
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)

I have been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) to treat the matter seriously and have been assured by him that this is not a party matter. I shall treat the matter very seriously, but I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments would have been made with a great deal more force if he had been more careful about accuracy and had not done me the discourtesy of publishing his letter to me and my letter to him before I had even received his letter to me. It is also a great pity the he made his speech without referring to the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), who first raised this matter with me and with whom I have therefore been in considerable touch. The hon. and learned Gentleman comes late to it and it would have been much better if he had treated the matter with the same seriousness that he asks from me.

I shall set out, first, the mistakes that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. There is no commitment by the Government to abolish the wages councils. He is clearly wrong in his letter to me. I made the matter absolutely clear, and he knows it because he was present during the debate when it was made clear that the Government are sensible enough to be examining the wages councils and to be considering their effect in reality on wage levels and the jobs that are available in the industries concerned. We said that if it emerged that the wages councils reduce the number of jobs available, especially opportunities for young people, any Government ought to take the necessary steps to protect jobs. It is quite untrue to say that we are committed to the abolition of wages councils. He has written it in a letter to me, has released it to the press and has reported it twice this evening, although he knows that it is untrue and knows that there is no such commitment, as he was present in the House when I made that absolutely clear.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Gummer

No, I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have little time and I am replying to his——

Mr. Janner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having made a personal attack of that type, it is unheard of for a Minister not to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Gummer

I shall be happy to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman when I have made my second point about his comments. He also said that there has been a reduction in resources available to the Health and Safety Executive. That is not true. The resources available to the Health and Safety Executive provided by the Government are greater now than they were when the Labour party was in power. That has been the constant arrangement which we have tried to put forward and which I have fought for and believe in.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise a matter of grave importance in the House, but he would be listened to with greater care if he had not thrown about allegations and sought to make this a party political issue instead of the serious issue it is, which I intend to take action upon seriously and in a way in which I hope I shall have the support at least of those who take the matter seriously rather than as a matter of mere propaganda.

Mr. Janner

Will the Minister undertake to the House that the Government will not abolish the wages council regulations?

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Gentleman, in case I have to say it again, will remember exactly what I said.

Mr. Janner

Yes or no?

Mr. Gummer

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will listen this time, he will hear what I have to say. The Government have said that they are looking at the whole question of wages councils. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman must not insist upon intervening and then from a sedentary position make remarks which——

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Gummer

I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He must listen to the facts, although he does not like them.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we are committed to abolish the wages councils. That is untrue; he knew it was untrue and he heard me say that it was untrue. He cannot in any way gainsay what I have said this evening.

We have said honestly and reasonably that we shall look at the whole issue. The reason why I cannot continue with the debate which the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced is that he interrupted me and demanded that he should be able to interrupt me. Therefore, I shall reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption. We in the Conservative party are concerned to protect the wages and conditions of people sufficiently to look at legislation which has been on the statute book for a long time and which in certain areas appears — although we do not have the full advice yet—to restrict the number of jobs available and not at the same time have the effect on wages which he would wish. Any investigation of those areas in Leicester covered by the wages councils, compared with those areas which are not, does not lead to an inevitable conclusion that those covered by the wages councils are significantly better protected than those which are not.

Having covered wages councils, may I take the other point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made? He has suggested that in Leicester there is a major problem which is paralleled in other parts of Britain. I realise that from discussions that I have had with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South, who has put to me the points which seem to be important behind the admirable campaign which has been waged by the Leicester Mercury. That paper has suggested that there are many such cases and has suggested that it will be putting evidence for those cases to those concerned.

One must accept that two different organisations are clearly concerned. First, there is the Health and Safety Executive, since this is a matter concerning health and safety. One of the problems that we are concerned with is that the major problem of health and safety in the kind of firms that we are talking about is not the usual kind. It is largely a matter of fire. That is not the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. The hon. and learned Gentleman recognised that, I think, in his reference to the fire hazard. That is the major problem in these industries. The hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that.

As for the problems which normally come to the Health and Safety Executive apart from fire, there have been two complaints and those are being followed up vigorously. We understand from the Leicester Mercury that there are some 80 complaints. We have not yet had any of the evidence that the newspaper will give or claims that it will give us. I have the assurance of the Health and Safety Executive that we shall look at that most carefully when we have it, because it is our duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) made the point graphically. It is our duty to be on the side of those who are least able to defend themselves. Therefore, it is our duty to investigate this matter with the greatest care and to do what we can to make sure that the law on health and safety is enforced. That is what we shall do, and that is why the Government have increased the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive.

That is why I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman should not at least have given credit where credit is due. Credit must be due to a Government who give more resources than did the Government that the hon. and learned Gentleman supported, a Government who did not face Adjournment debates on this subject when they were giving less money to it. If that had been so, we would take more seriously the points that he has made.

The Health and Safety Executive is also greatly concerned that we should ensure that all those factories carrying out operations report their existence to the Health and Safety Executive, as they should. This problem exists all over the country, and it always has. Factories are set up which do not report to the Health and Safety Executive. We have been improving the relationships between the Health and Safety Executive, the fire officers and others who have knowledge of the factories, and we are seeking constantly to make sure that we have lists of them, and that they are inspected.

The real problem comes with the wages inspectorate. A large number of these factories do not come under the wages inspectorate. For reasons that I think are lost in the mists of antiquity, when the Liberal Government arranged the areas to be covered by the wages inspectorate, those in the knitwear industry were differentiated from those who make up by sewing machine or by hand, so the knitwear industry does not have the coverage of the wages inspectorate that the other clothing industries have. This means that there is not a mechanism that would enable us to investigate the low pay involved.

We have to look at the problem of low pay in a much wider sense. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in complaining about conditions in which people appear to be working in appalling conditions in terms of safety or of the pay that they receive. I can assure him that there is no question of the Government dissenting from the argument that those who are offered pay levels way below what would be reasonable have every reason to complain. The problem in Leicester is that a number of vacancies appear to be advertised at pay levels above those which are claimed for some of these people, and those do not seem to be being taken up. I am looking carefully at the situation with the jobcentres concerned to see whether we can identify the truth of these allegations. One of our problems is that we have a large number of allegations, but few facts on which to work.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that this is always a difficulty when we are faced with people who may fear for their jobs and who therefore may not wish to put the allegations to us. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South and others have brought this matter to my attention, and have pointed out that one of their difficulties is acquiring facts, figures and details upon which action can be taken. We look forward to receiving from the Leicester Mercury all the details it has. I shall personally see that, so far as we have powers to act on them, we shall do so.

The Health and Safety Executive is increasing its efforts to ensure that, through the various bodies, and the various communities and groups in Leicester who have an interest in this, we shall seek to make a more efficient and more complete list of those factories which come within our responsibility. Total coverage will never be possible. That is a fact of life that Governments of both political persuasions have accepted. However, it must be possible to have the most complete list that can be managed. In so far as our lists are incomplete, we will seek to make them more complete, and we shall certainly seek to have the resources that are necessary to see that they are inspected. Above all, we will seek with wages inspectors to cover those areas which the wages councils already cover.

I listened with care to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about fire risks. However, that is a matter not for the Health and Safety Executive or the Government but for Leicestershire county council. I understand that the blocking of the changes advocated was only the blocking of large increases in expenditure proposed by the ruling group. Now that the control of Leicestershire county council has changed, I shall take the opportunity to discuss with the new authorities what they can do to improve, if necessary, the coverage for fire in Leicester, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for such matters brings to the attention of the authorities the hon. Gentleman's complaint and discusses with them whether some improvements can be made.

The hon. Gentleman rather disdainfully raised one last issue when he referred to my——

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

Adjourned at ten minutes past One o'clock.