§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty for being here, because I know that he has a very important engagement in a few minutes, and I will not detain him longer than is absolutely necessary, but the matter which I have to raise is a very grave and serious one, affecting the employment of a whole town and the careers and future of a large number of faithful servants of the Crown. Last night, in common with the other Members for Plymouth, I received a telegram from the Plymouth Town Council, based on a resolution which was passed yesterday by the Council, unanimously, by all parties. Some 210 men in the dockyard at Devonport have received notices of discharge. I think it is a very unfortunate thing that these discharges should be announced on the eve of the Parliamentary Recess, but in some measure I suppose we ought to be grateful for that, because when a previous decision to close two dockyard towns, Rosyth and Pembroke, was taken, it was announced in the Recess, when there was no means of protesting in this House. Therefore, I am at any rate grateful for the small breathing space that is given, because it enables me to give an invitation to my hon. and gallant Friend to make an announcement as to what the proximate policy of the Admiralty is to be with regard to tire Southern dock 1716 yards, and Devonport in particular. When Pembroke and Rosyth were closed, I asked a question of the predecessor of the hon. and gallant Member as to the effect which the closing of those yards would have upon Devonport, and the answer I received, on 22nd March, 1926, was this:
He will be pleased to know that the number to be employed at Devonport will be considerably greater, owing to the transfers from Rosyth and Pembroke Dock, than would otherwise have been the case."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1926; cols. 873–4, Vol. 193.)There is a specific statement made on behalf of a responsible Department that we were going to have more employment at Devonport, but what happened? Within a few months, 600 men were thrown out of work in Devonport, and following closely upon that unfortunate incident and, as I can only term it, breach of understanding, come the discharges, for the first time in official history, of a number of established men. It is a small number, it is true, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise the sense of insecurity under which every dockyard employé rests at the present moment. They do not know what their future is to be. One can quite understand any Government embarking on a policy of peace, a policy which means the building of fewer armaments, but surely that peace is not to be purchased at the expense of faithful servants of the Crown, without any notice, without any provision being made for them and for their families.The town which I represent is a town which depends entirely, exclusively, and absolutely upon the building and repair of ships of war, and if the dockyard is to share the fate of Rosyth and Pembroke, let us know it, but also let us make some provision for the alternative employment of the men, who have committed no crime and who are suffering so severely. It appears to be the tendency of the Admiralty to send work to private yards, and the construction this year shows that the private yards are getting over £2,000,000 more work than the dockyards. When times are better, these private yards will get more work from outside sources, but there can never be work from outside sources for His Majesty's dockyards, and I do request the Admiralty to look forward in this matter and, having considered their policy, if they come to the conclusion that the 1717 Southern yards or any of them are of no further use to them, let them devise some means whereby these men can continue to live. What these men will have to do now is to go to America and build a fleet against our own. The Americans apparently are going to increase their Navy. They are paying very much better wages than our dockyards, and why should men whom we have trained be driven abroad, simply because of the narrow-minded policy of the Admiralty, a policy which refuses to consider any kind of alternative employment for the best skilled men in the country? As I say, an undertaking was given by the Admiralty, after the closing of Rosyth and Pembroke, that more employment would be provided for the best skilled men. In every year since then, instead of more employment, more discharges have been made. Some 190 discharges were made in 1924; 962 discharges in 1925; 2,536 discharges in 1926; and over that number in that part of the present year which we have already passed. It really is not good enough, and I plead with my hon. and gallant Friend, on the eve of the Recess, to let these men know what their future is. That is all that we want to know—whether or not there are going to be more discharges, whether or not the Admiralty are considering, with the Ministry of Labour or with any other Department, the possible alternative use of the dockyards
I want also to ask him if he will tell the House what the effect of the removal of those destroyers to Rosyth is going to be. It is going to result, we are told, in an economy of £130,000, £40,000 of which is coming out of the pockets of the people of Devonport, in addition to the distresses from which we already suffer. It means that £40,000 less is going to be spent in a year in the shops at Devon-port, and it means that naval personnel are going to be separated from their families. I want to know if he can give me any precise forecast of what the removal of those destroyers will mean. The last announcement of discharges has brought a heavy and menacing cloud over my constituency, which has already been severely battered by the storm, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend may be able to announce the prospect of better weather which shall dispel that menacing cloud, and bring some better 1718 hope for the future to the persons whom I have the honour to represent.
§ Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNI want to join in what my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has said, and to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty that a short time ago I had the pleasure of being present at an interview between a deputation from Plymouth and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the impression taken away from that interview was that in no circumstances were there going to be more discharges this summer. As the hon. Member for Devonport has said, according to the telegram received yesterday, they are intensely excited and worried in Plymouth over the idea of further discharges that were not expected. I am not going to raise the question of the economy of making these discharges, except to say this, that with the labour market largely overstocked, it is, in my opinion, the very poorest economy to turn skilled men on to that market—the very poorest. I hope the Admiralty will realise that if they go in for economy, as we all want them to, it is not economy to discharge any more men from dockyards at the present time. I hope the matter will be taken up by the Admiralty, and that even if they have got a decision that they are going to discharge the men to-day, they will see that it is wiser for the country that the men should not be discharged but that the dockyards should be kept open.
§ Major PRICEI quite agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) as to his being in stormy water, but I would remind the House that at any rate he is in harbour. We in Pembroke, unfortunately, are on the rocks. We have been wrecked by Admiralty economy and national economy so-called, and I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for the Drake Division (Sir A. Shirley Benn) suggest that it may not be the truest economy to discharge men on to a market where there is nothing for them to do. What we regret in Pembroke is that in spite of all our efforts to try to get some amelioration of our conditions nothing has been done. We have met with the utmost sympathy from the Admiralty, with the utmost sympathy from every Member of the Government 1719 to whom we have spoken, but the practical effort which has resulted is nil. If some real, practical measures were taken something could be done, but, unfortunately, the Admiralty have, quite rightly, taken up the position that they are concerned purely with Admiralty matters, and that the question of labour is a matter entirely for other Ministries. But when we go to the Ministry of Labour they say, "This is a question in which we cannot interfere. This is an Admiralty matter." We pass on then to other Members of the Government, but all want somebody else to "hold the baby." In the meantime, the unfortunate adult, Pembroke, which is not a new infant, like Rosyth, is gradually decaying.
What I wish the Admiralty would do is to consult with some of the other Government Departments in order to see whether some work cannot be carried on in that dockyard, where we have the plant, the buildings, and everything required for other forms of work. We hear about the mechanisation of the Army, and undoubtedly experiments with tanks and things of that kind have to be made. Surely those experimental machines, those tanks and other things required for Government services, might be made at Pembroke Dockyard. The utilisation of the plant would be an economy, and if a determined effort were made to try to find some work, some work could be found, but, unfortunately, it is nobody's business to do it. I do want the Admiralty to see that it is somebody's business to see what can be done. We do not ask for a lot. At the present moment we have about 300 men engaged on making oil tanks, but that work is gradually coming to an end, and when it is finished we shall be absolutely derelict. Unfortunately, as it has turned out, many of the men employed in the dockyard are the owners of their own houses. When there was no further employment or prospect of employment, many of these men who were established men had to go to other parts, and then found they were unable to dispose of their property. I do not say that it is purely the Admiralty's business but I do say it is the Government's business to see what can be done to mitigate the hardships from which these people are suffering.
1720 The whole object of creating a town at Pembroke Dockyard out of nothing but a few cottages in the early part of the last century was to have there a town at the service of the nation and for the purposes of the dockyard. The town grew up, a century passed and then, with only six months' warning, the whole object of the town was destroyed by the closing of the dockyard gates. The town, its people, and all its institutions remained. At first the distress was not so great, because the people were living on their savings, and on certain gratuities which they received from the Government when they were discharged from the dockyard; but day after day, as time passes, this distress gets greater and greater. I am perfectly certain that the sympathy of the House is with us, but until that sympathy takes a practical form it is of no real help to us. It seems nobody's business to do anything, and that is why I ask that the Admiralty will take whatever steps may be necessary to see that it is somebody's business. It was suggeted that certain institutions for the training of naval ratings should be started at Pembroke Dockyard. We believe provision was made for that in the Estimates last year, but that owing to economic stringency those proposals were cut out. We hope they may be replaced next year, and that we shall be able to look forward to some form of training being started there.
Another point which has been raised is—I do not know whether this is true—that the Committee of Imperial Defence say that the dockyard must be ready for reopening at a month's notice. If a dockyard is a necessity, from a strategical point of view, for the defence of the Empire, the burden of keeping it in a state in which it is ready to be reopened at a month's notice should not fall mainly on the unfortunate district. It ought to be kept not only ready for reopening but with a nucleus personnel there, and that should be an Imperial or a national burden and not a local burden. I do hope that the sympathy which has always been expressed with us will take a practical form at an early date, and that we shall be saved from destruction. If the Admiralty or the Government do not come to our help, nothing can save the town from utter disaster in the very near future.
§ Mr. KELLYReferences have been made this afternoon to Devonport, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary when dealing with this matter will remember also Chatham, Sheerness and Portsmouth, and although Members for those constituencies are not here, I can speak for them, at least as far as the operatives are concerned. I would like him also to tell us why it is that those of us who are on the Whitley Council—I am a member of the Shipbuilding Trade Joint Council—received only this morning the letter from the Director of Dockyards to tell us of these discharges. The letter is dated the 27th of July, and I admit that it reached the secretary of the trade union side yesterday, but there was a meeting within the last fortnight, and surely something of this ought to have been known to the Admiralty and ought to have been communicated to us at that time. The number to be discharged is much greater than the figures which have been given, but I am leaving it at that. I join with my hon. Friend in stating that I think a mistake has been made by the Government in not paying regard to what could be done with the dockyards when there was no armament work for them. We have urged various Governments to deal with this question, and to make up their mind what shall be done with dockyards and arsenals. It is very curious that when we are being sent away for several months on holiday on full pay—there will be no stoppage so far as Members of Parliament are concerned—this should be the moment chosen for giving enforced holidays without pay to so many men who have served the Government so well. I think it is a mistake that such a lengthened holiday is being given to Members of this House when we have such serious problems before us.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam)I can very well sympathise with the views which have been expressed by all hon. Members who have spoken this morning, and I need scarcely say that from the Admiralty point of view we regret very deeply the necessity which has been forced upon us of making these discharges. I am particularly sympathetic with the case put forward by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Major Price), because he and I have had a good many 1722 discussions as to what can be done with Pembroke Dock. As he truly said, the Admiralty had some idea of doing something in this direction last year, but actually we made no provision in the Estimates for that purpose. There is a harder ruler than the Admiralty, and we were prevented by the necessity of strictest economy from carrying out our intentions. I need scarcely say that it my hon. Friend will bring forward any practical suggestions which will enable us to help in regard to Pembroke Dock we shall give them our best consideration. I can assure hon. Members that we are always bearing the case of Pembroke Dock in mind. That may be cold comfort to hon. Members, but it is all I can give them at the present moment. With regard to the discharges which are the subject of the discussion this morning, I might as well give the House the discharges that we have in view at the present moment. Here are the facts. The discharges ordered are 220 at Portsmouth, 210 at Devonport, 320 at Chatham, and 50 at Sheerness, making 800 in all. These discharges are being made in two lots. Except in the case of Devon-port, the first notices are being issued to-morrow and the second on the 6th of August. We give two weeks' notice.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAWhy is there a difference at Devonport?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMAt Devon-port the notices are being delayed in view of certain work which has to be done on two of His Majesty's ships. The reason we have to make these discharges is that certain work which was contemplated in the dockyard programme is not now required to be done. That work related to the re-tubing of boilers in certain of His Majesty's ships which is not necessary at the present time because the life of the tubes was found to be longer than was anticipated. This is the main reason which has obliged us to make these further reductions in the dockyard staff. The matter was not known when the First Lord received the deputation to which my hon. Friend referred and on which occasion my right hon. Friend expressed the very sincere hope that it would not be necessary to make any further reductions in dockyard staffs this year.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHADoes that apply to all the dockyards?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI cannot say which particular dockyard, but, when we are making reductions, we try to distribute them over all the dockyards.
§ Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNWill not those boilers require re-tubing later on?
§ Mr. KELLYWhen was the survey made with regard to those boilers after which the Admiralty came to the conclusion that the life of the tubes is much longer than was anticipated?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI can only give the hon. Member the information which has been given to me on this subject, but I suppose the survey referred to was subsequent to the meeting at which my hon. Friend alleges that the details were given. I think the House should know the whole situation. As a matter of fact, the reduction in the estimate of work contemplated would have necessitated the immediate discharge of 1,000 men, but, owing to our efforts in obtaining additional work on a repayment basis having been successful, the actual discharges were reduced to 800. Of course, I cannot give any assurance whether in the interests of national economy—or rather what is considered economy, because there are two opinions about that—it may be necessary to make further reductions in the course of the year, and I cannot give any guarantee that there will not be further reductions.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWill the reductions apply to all the dockyards as far as possible?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThat is the intention of the Board of Admiralty. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) criticised the policy of the Admiralty in giving work to private dockyards when there was not sufficient work to satisfy the demands of the Government dockyards. The policy of the Admiralty is to distribute the work as fairly as possible in the interests of the whole community, and it is obvious that in parts of England where there are private dockyards at the present time the conditions as regards unemployment are considerably worse than in the southern dockyards of England. I might quote the percentages of unemployment which illustrates very conclusively the truth of what I have just said. At Chatham, the per 1724 centage is 9.2; Devonport, 11.3; Portsmouth, 9.3; and Sheerness, 6.4. In private dockyards at Barrow the percentage is 12.5; Clyde, 13.4; Jarrow, 29.6; Newcastle, 17.9; North Shields, 22.7; Liverpool, 16.9; and Birkenhead, 19.4. It is clear, therefore, that, if the Board of Admiralty is to consider the dockyards at home and the interests of the working-class community as a whole, it must give a share of the work to the private dockyards. Although I perfectly understand the attitude of Members representing southern dockyard constituencies, we as a Government have to consider the rest of the community, and that is why we still give work in the proportion that is fixed by the Admiralty between the private dockyards and the Government dockyards.
The hon. Member asked me what was going to be the effect of the policy of the Admiralty in sending these destroyers to be put in cotton wool, so to speak, in Rosyth. I cannot, of course, answer for the prophetic instinct of my predecessor. I do not know all the facts of the case, and I do not know how far his answer can be considered as representing anything but intelligent prophecy; but I am not going to say that I believe the effect of sending these destroyers to be kept in security in the more peaceful waters of Rosyth is going to bring employment to the Southern dockyards. Obviously, it cannot have that effect. But, before they go, they are going to be put into thorough repair and overhauled in every way, and that work will be done in Southern dockyards. They will then be sent up to Rosyth. The financial saving is as the hon. Member suggested. We hope to save about £130,000 per annum as a result of this move. Of that, between £40,000 and £50,000 undoubtedly represents dockyard labour. The rest will be due to a saving in material and stores and to a reduction in the number of naval personnel employed.
I know, and, as I said before, I quite well appreciate, the objection which certain hon. Members may have to this economic move on the part of the Admiralty, but I must beg them to take the larger view. They are calling for economy. You cannot get economy without making some people suffer, and that is the tragedy of economy. No one regrets it more than the Admiralty. If 1725 the Admiralty were allowed to do as they wished, no doubt they would keep the dockyards going full steam ahead now and for ever, in the interests of the nation, as they believe, and as I most certainly believe. Unfortunately, however, it cannot be done, and, as a result, we have to make economies in every possible way. Therefore, although I admit and quite appreciate that there must be criticism of these economies from certain quarters, I do beg the Mem 1726 bers of the House as a whole to realise that they must be made, and that, however much individual places may suffer, the interests of the whole community are larger and must prevail.
§ Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes before Two o'clock, until Tuesday, 8th November, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.