HC Deb 28 June 1956 vol 555 cc704-12
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod)

The House will be aware of the decision of the British Motor Corporation, of which I was informed privately last Monday, to give notice today to 6,000 of their workers that they would be discharged tomorrow with one week's pay in lieu of notice. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a short statement about the arrangements which are being made by my Department to deal with the situation.

The employment exchanges will try to place as many as possible of the men affected in jobs near their homes, but it will not be possible for all of them to obtain employment in their locality. Through the normal interchange arrangements details of suitable vacancies in other parts of the Midlands Region and elsewhere in the country will be made available at the exchanges at which the men in question will be registering.

Among the opportunities for employment in the Midlands are a considerable number in transport and coal mining. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Minister of Fuel and Power, who have been in touch with the British Transport Commission and the National Coal Board to ask them to do what they can to accelerate their rate of intake.

Mr. G. Brown

This is a very grave statement, and, with permission, I should like to ask three short but, I think, very vital questions. This company has—I should have thought, somewhat arrogantly—decided to pay no heed to the Minister's repeated requests that when industry is faced with this problem it should enter into adequate consultation with the other side, with the workers, and with the Ministry, in order that an adjustment may be made without undue trouble. I should like to ask the Minister what he feels he ought now to do to see that the employing side of industry pays heed to his requests.

Secondly, as he now says, I think quite rightly, that it will not be possible for all those men and those left unemployed at Coventry to obtain employment in their locality, is he now prepared to consider the sort of things we did during the war to obtain mobility of labour, such as having travelling allowances and lodging allowances, accommodation and all the rest, so that these men may, if need be, move?

Lastly, as the company, in its statement, firmly attributes as the reason for these dismissals the Government's economic policy, is the Minister now willing to explain to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that until we have an end of this economic policy we are bound to have this impossible industrial position arising from it?

Mr. Macleod

I have said on many occasions that it is extremely desirable, when any changes are contemplated that will alter the strength of the labour force, that the earliest possible notice should be given to the men and to the employment exchanges so that their services can be usefully employed. I can understand the desire of the firm to postpone a decision like this as long as possible, but this load of work suddenly put upon the employment exchanges does make it extremely difficult for them, with the best will in the world, to carry out their functions and to provide the services which they want to give to the men affected.

As to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I replied in some detail to him in a Written Answer, which will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Some of the questions about lodging allowances and fares, and so on, are covered by that Answer. Suitable powers are available. On the larger question of the economic policy of the Government, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have seen from the statement issued by the company that many other matters apart from that are involved in this decision it has taken.

Mr. M. Lindsay

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the very prompt way in which he has acted, may I ask him whether he agrees that every good employer in the country will strongly disapprove of the short notice which these men have been given? Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Chairman of the British Motor Corporation that if it does not seek to mitigate the hardship involved by ex gratia payments in lieu of longer notice the Corporation will be most severely criticised by public opinion throughout the country?

Mr. Macleod

I indicated earlier, and I agree with my hon. Friend, that the amount of notice given in this case is profoundly disturbing. My hon. Friend mentioned my moving quickly. I have been, as I said, in touch with my right hon. Friends. I should, perhaps, add this also, in response to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that yesterday the National Advisory Council for the Motor Industry had a meeting under the chairmanship of the President of the Board of Trade, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service went to the meeting and stressed to all those who were present the desirability of having as long notice as possible so that we can do all we can for everybody concerned.

Mr. Lindsay

Will my right hon. Friend answer the second part of my question?

Mr. Isaacs

In view of the Minister's reference to the National Coal Board being informed of these men being available, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if an engineer or a carpenter is offered employment in the mines, but declines to take it, he will be debarred from receiving unemployment benefit?

Mr. Macleod

One cannot answer a hypothetical question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course one cannot. However, almost all the 6,000 men are semi-skilled or unskilled. I believe that only about 300 of them come into the category of skilled men.

Mr. Dugdale

The right hon. Gentleman stated that there is plenty of other work available in the Midlands. Is he aware that there is a very grave housing shortage in the Midlands? Can he say what is expected of those people discharged at Coventry if they are asked to find work in other parts of the Midlands? Has he any arrangement by which they can obtain housing accommodation in those other parts?

Mr. Macleod

I do not think that that problem is anything like as difficult as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] No, it is not. It must be within the knowledge of the House that tens of thousands of people have found their way into the Midlands in recent years and found accommodation there.

Mr. Nabarro

Will my right hon. Friend put the figures in proper perspective and agree that, although 6,000 workers have been displaced, there are still thousands upon thousands of vacancies in the immediate area of Birmingham and Coventry which are available? Will my right hon. Friend give us the figures of vacancies in relation to the number of men who have been displaced?

Mr. Macleod

There are many qualifications one has to make, but there are vacancies, and for men they are as follow: in Birmingham, just over 6,000; within reasonable daily travelling distance of Birmingham, 12,600; in the Midland region as a whole, 26,750.

Mr. Chapman

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the management of the company summoned the joint consultation machinery at eleven o'clock yesterday morning but was by then already issuing the dismissal notices, and that it made it absolutely clear to the joint consultation machinery that it was not prepared to allow any consultation whatsoever on those dismissals? Is he further aware that, of the vacancies in the greater Birmingham area, it is not likely that more than 2,000 will be suitable for the men dismissed, 5,600 of them in the Birmingham area, by the B.M.C. and its subsidiaries? Is the Minister as complacent now as he has been throughout this year about the future of the motor car industry, despite all the warnings which have been given him from time to time?

Mr. Macleod

I did know the facts of the timing of the announcement, as the hon. Member has stated. I and my local exchanges have been—and for a long time, ever since short-time working started—carefully into the details of the jobs available but, of course, the number of pegs do not exactly match the number of holes. They never do, but as I have said, in answer to a previous question, the bulk of the people who are being discharged are unskilled and semi-skilled people. For the small minority of skilled men there will be very little problem in that particular area. I have always been concerned with the future of the motor car industry and have never been complacent about it.

Miss Lee

May I ask that the House should be given time to discuss both the employment situation and the housing situation in the Midlands, as the two are tied together? Is the Minister aware that the answer which he gave about housing is completely inaccurate? Is he aware that, when he suggests that semi-skilled or unskilled men should move to the coal mining industry, he is forgetting that coal mining is also a skilled occupation? Since the right hon. Gentleman's answers have contained so many inaccurate and misleading statements, may I suggest that it is time that the House should seriously discuss together the two subjects that I have mentioned?

Mr. Macleod

I do not accept the last part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question at all. As to the first part, on the general point, we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition that he intends that Tuesday's debate should be wide enough to include the situation of the general economic policy of the Government, and, presumably, with reference to the motor car industry.

As to coal mining, work there is, of course, extremely skilled. As the hon. Lady knows, some of the trends of recruitment for coal mining have been reasonably satisfactory lately in the Midlands, and the National Coal Board is to arrange, as part of the special measures which we have tried to take—actually in the last few hours—to send special recruiting teams to the Birmingham area and organise local publicity there.

Mr. Edelman

To secure as calm a discussion as possible of this great national problem, will the right hon. Gentleman urge managements, like that of Standard's, not to use hectoring and bullying terms, as were used yesterday, to the trade unions pending negotiations?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. V. Yates

On a point of order.

Hon. Members

Why does not the Minister answer the question?

Mr. Yates

On a point of order.

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. What is the hon. Member's point of order?

Mr. Yates

On a point of order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I made a gesture which was wrong. I had no desire to do that, but I want to put a point of order to you.

I am the only hon. Member who has four Questions on the Order Paper concerning this issue. I was informed that I was not permitted to withdraw those Questions in favour of a Private Notice Question. I submit to you, in view of this great blow to Birmingham, that hon. Members representing Birmingham should have an opportunity of putting questions. I should like to have the opportunity to put a question to the Minister and I ask whether I may be allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker

It escaped my notice that the hon. Member had Questions on the Order Paper. They are not for today, I think, but for next week. I will bear that in mind on another occasion.

Mr. Yates

It is true, Sir, that my Questions were put down for answer by the Minister of Labour on Tuesday. I was prepared to consider withdrawing those Questions in favour of a Private Notice Question. I was not permitted to do so. I submit, therefore, that in those circumstances, and in view of the fact that this is such a vital matter to Birmingham, I was entitled to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. C. Pannell

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I was not aware of all this that the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) tells me about his being prepared to withdraw his Questions. The hon. Member has Questions on the Order Paper for Tuesday and they will come up, and we are to have a debate on Tuesday, too.

Mr. Albu

On a point of order. Surely, if an hon. Member asks to put a Private Notice Question and he is informed that he cannot do so because he has Questions on the Order Paper a week ahead, it is quite wrong for a Minister to make a statement which would have been made if a Private Notice Question had been asked.

Mr. Speaker

Not so. By the practice of the House a Minister is allowed to make a statement at any time, if he thinks it in the public interest to do so. A Minister's statement is not barred by a Question on the Order Paper. In this case, there was a request for a Private Notice Question and it was barred by the Questions on the Order Paper but, nevertheless, the Minister, in his own discretion, thought it best to make a statement and that was quite in order.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. Would you please be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to explain this, because there seems to me to be some confusion? We are given to understand that the Minister is entitled to make a statement, presumably because a matter is urgent. If that is so, why is a Private Notice Question not accepted because it is submitted on the ground of urgency?

Mr. Speaker

It is the rule about Private Notice Questions that they must not anticipate Questions of which another hon. Member has given notice. That applies as among Members. It does not apply to a Minister who desires to make a statement. He is the judge of whether it is urgent or not, and not I.

Mr. Macleod

Further to that, Sir, is it not a fact that in this case a Private Notice Question was debarred for the technical reasons that were given? It was to meet the convenience of the Opposition that I took the course of making a statement.

Mr. Speaker

That explains it. I really cannot hear any more about it.

Mr. Shurmer

With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that nearly all of the 6,000 men who are being dismissed are employed in factories in Birmingham, would it not have been fair to have given more than one Birmingham Member, of whom there are thirteen, a chance to air our grievances?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think so. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in this matter.

Mr. Elliot

Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that that is a definite matter. At any rate, notice has already been given of a Motion to be discussed on Tuesday on this matter and I think that in those circumstances it is not eligible within the Standing Order.

Mr. Elliot

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, may I adduce this further argument—that the Minister himself has commented very strongly on the short notice given by the firm in question and the urgent desire which he had that further notice should be given in the case of this and other such firms? This was also commented upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay). I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is urgent because the notices are actually going out at this moment, and that there is an obvious desire on the part of the House to discuss the matter, and today is a much more appropriate day to do so than a day next week.

Mr. Speaker

The fact that the Minister commented adversely upon the shortness of the notice is a sign that he was not himself responsible for that shortness. All debates on the Adjournment must allege Ministerial responsibility. What the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) is now saying is that the Minister is responsible for this matter. He is not. He has detailed the matters which come within his own responsibility, and in that I can see nothing which is urgent and would call for a debate.

Sir I. Fraser

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order, order. On that matter I must adhere to what I have said, that if there is a prospect of an early debate, as there is on Tuesday, the matter is not within the Standing Order of the House.

Sir I. Fraser

On my right hon. Friends submission, Sir, does that mean that you will not hear further arguments on his submission?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, certainly.

Sir I. Fraser

Then may I submit to you two points? First, the matter raised—did you mean yes or no, Sir?

Mr. Speaker

I meant that I was not prepared to hear further argument on the matter because I have already decided it and, I think, decided it rightly.