Skip to main content

Motor Workers, Coventry (Electrical Components)

Volume 643: debated on Tuesday 27 June 1961

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to prevent mass redundancy of motor workers in the Coventry area following the sudden and unforeseen shortage of electrical components.

I am in close touch with two unions principally concerned and they are continuing their efforts to secure an early resumption of work in the unofficial strike which has caused this situation. There is a further meeting of the strikers tomorrow, at which renewed efforts will be made by the unions.

While welcoming the initiative which the Minister has taken, may I ask him whether he will bring home to all concerned that the development of this dispute is undermining not only the immediate livelihood of the workers concerned, but the future of the motor industry, which is now gravely threatened by foreign competition?

During the right hon. Gentleman's recent talks at the Ministry of Labour with representatives of the motor workers and of the employers, did he not produce some sort of formula in order to be able to anticipate trouble before it, develops into disputes of this nature, which threaten not only those people directly concerned, but the industry as a whole and vast numbers of men who have no direct association with the dispute and whose livelihood is directly involved?

I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question. I myself said in the House yesterday that this unofficial strike can not only throw thousands of fellow workers out of work, and that not only does it weaken a great industry on which our prosperity relies to a very large extent, but, also—and I think that this is very important—it damages the good name of the trade union movement itself. I therefore entirely associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman said about that.

In the talks that we had with the motor car industry, we stressed the need for establishing better relations on the shop floor. In addition to saying that agreements should be kept, much of our effort was designed to secure better training of shop stewards, foremen and supervisors.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side again appeal to the strikers at Smith's Motor Accessories to return to work and to allow the trade unions to begin negotiations? Is he further aware that there now appears to be a case for setting up a court of inquiry to examine this matter? I see that some trade union leaders suggest that such action should be taken. In view of the danger of redundancy throughout a very large section of the motor car industry, will the right hon. Gentleman consider that proposition?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question. However, I think that it is up to us to ensure that the leaders of the unions are given every chance to get on with the job of getting their people back to work. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about an inquiry. Whatever may have appeared in the Press, no request for an inquiry has been made to me.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do nothing to yield to the unreasonable demands of these unofficial strikers? Will he bear in mind that ordinary people are sick and tired of unofficial strikes? Further, will he do his utmost to ensure that nothing is done to encourage them and that as far as possible the men responsible for them are punished?

I think that my hon. Friend will have perceived the feeling which, I think, exists on both sides of the House on this matter. I have received assurances from hon. Members opposite as well as from my hon. Friends that our job is to try to ensure that agreements are kept and that the unions are given the chance of getting on with the job of getting their men back to work.

I ask the Minister not to be taken in by the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). I understand that the Minister is leaving these islands tonight to do a job of salesmanship in connection with the Common Market, for which we all recognise his competence. However, in view of at least two major strikes in this industry and a great deal of redundancy, would it not be a very good thing if he stayed here and attended to the problems which are the problems of his Department? Who is to take charge of the dangerous situation in the motor car industry while he is away? Does the Prime Minister think it reasonable that this matter should be left to the Parliamentary Secretary while the Minister goes flying round the world?

I appreciate, and am very grateful for, the right hon. Gentleman's kind remark about my fitness to travel abroad.

This is a matter of great importance, of course. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will ensure that this situation is kept very closely under review. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is present and has heard what has been said. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no lack of care in giving all the assistance that we can in this matter. I am seeing Mr. Carron and Mr. Matthews as soon as I leave the House. We are keeping in very close touch.

But the right hon. Gentleman is keeping in touch only until tonight. I am not sure whether the reference to the Prime Minister is an encouragement or a discouragement, but the Minister did not answer my question. I asked him who will be responsible when he has disappeared. Are we to take it that we may put Questions to the Prime Minister about this matter?

The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is a very old Parliamentarian. He knows perfectly well that if the Minister is not present to answer a Question, then it is put to the Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman put his Question seriously, and I give him the assurance that the Government will be watching the situation and doing everything that they can to assist in it.