HC Deb 02 April 1936 vol 310 cc2243-8

8.31 p.m.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR

I beg to move, in page 11, line 14, at the end, to insert: (d) that no chemist or other technical expert other than a British subject has been employed in a wage-earning capacity for a longer period than is considered by the Minister necessary for the training of a British subject to carry on this work. I do not think this Clause needs very much explanation, as it is a very simple one; but I would like to warn hon. Members opposite that there are a great many unemployed people in this country, and that if they do not support this Amendment I rather tremble for them when they go back to their constituencies and face the angry British subjects who have been kept out of employment by aliens and refugees coming to this country. I would like to appeal to the Minister to meet me, and those associated with me on this Amendment, by agreeing to include in the Bill something which will deal with this matter.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. BOULTON

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree to the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will find no difficulty in accepting it. In this Clause protection has been given to British machinery and plant, but no protection has been given to British labour or to the technical supervisory staff which is very important in connection with this industry. No doubt we owed a good deal to alien knowledge in the early stages of the establishment of this industry, but I am assured that to-day aliens are holding a great many of the higher positions in the beet sugar factories. I am also assured that very little encouragement is being given to British chemists and technologists. Although courses have been started in some of the universities, and particularly at the Royal Technical College in Glasgow, the authorities there assure me that they cannot get the students to undertake the courses because they know there is no encouragement for them to enter and gradually to rise to the higher positions in the management of these companies. That seems to me a very unhealthy position, because we believe this industry to be a great national asset and that it will grow into an important industry step by step. It will be of great importance to us in time of war and we should consider whether it is a healthy thing for the higher positions in it to be held by aliens to the extent that they are. The Amendment is drawn in wide terms and will in no way penalise the industry.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

I am sure that the object of the Amendment has the sympathy of the whole House. It is that we should, as far as possible, train our people to work in these factories. As recently as 19270–28 there were 221 alien people in the higher ranks of the industry, but that number has been brought down to 31 to—day. We should not exaggerate the position. There are now only 31 people of alien birth in the whole of this industry as against 9,100 of British origin.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR

I would like to know the percentage of alien technical experts to British technical experts engaged in the industry.

Mr. ELLIOT

There are, for instance, 61 British chemists and no alien, and 465 foremen engineers, etc., and eight aliens. I do not think we should exaggerate the position when the number of aliens has been brought down from 221 to 31, and when, in the case of chemists, for instance, there are 61 British and no aliens employed at all. The House ought to remember, furthermore, that 28 out of the 31 have permission from the Ministry of Labour to remain here unconditionally and are subject to no restrictions in regard to their employment. If they were turned out of these factories they would still be able to apply for employment in other places. All that would happen if they were turned out is that skilled men would be going about displacing British subjects in some other jobs. There is also the possibility that they might become naturalised, and I do not think a. man who is naturalised under compulsion is likely to be a good citizen in time of war. When such a small number is concerned we should not go chasing people by Statute.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR

This Amendment leaves it to the discretion of the Minister.

Mr. ELLIOT

Yes, but it puts a pretty strong compulsion upon him, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that within a short time of that provision becoming a Statute the Minister would be chased with questions asking why, so and so had not been replaced by a, British subject. That is not the atmosphere in which I want the Corporation to start. I want it to be as strong in technical efficiency as we can have it, and we should do our utmost to see that British subjects get posts because of their technical quality and chemical skill and not because we have drawn a rigid line by Statute.

Mr. QUIBELL

How is Mr. Van Rossum to be described?

Mr. ELLIOT

The whole purpose of this Bill is that Mr. Van Rossum should disappear altogether.

Mr. QUIBELL

I am delighted.

Mr. ELLIOT

I am glad to observe the robust nationalism of the hon. Gentleman. In launching this Corporation we want the best people in order to make it efficient, and I do not think we should try and seek to get efficiency by drawing a rigid line by Statute as to who should be employed. I think that the powers under the Aliens Order are sufficient to ensure that no further foreigners are brought into the country for employment in this industry. A permit from the Ministry of Labour has to be obtained for a foreigner to get leave to land for employment purposes, and foreigners in the country are still subject to authority in regard to employment and have to obtain permission from the Home Office, which would in the normal practice consult the Ministry of Labour. In regard to this industry the Ministry would require convincing evidence of the need of a foreigner's services before permission would be given, and the Ministry would certainly consult with the Ministry of Agriculture. I think that in the absence of strong evidence I should have the greatest hesitation in allowing any fresh persons to come over. Seeing that there are only 31 persons concerned, of whom 28 have unlimited permission to reside in the country, the effective result of the Amendment is that it is limited to three persons only. I would therefore ask my hon. Friend whether he would see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of this 31 are employed in a wage-earning capacity as against a salary capacity, because the Amendment only deals with wage-earners?

Mr. ELLIOT

I always admire the intellectual ingenuity of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think that my hon. Friend in moving the Amendment had in view those who were in receipt of emoluments in general, and that he did not intend to differentiate too closely between the "salariat" and the proletariat.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR

In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER

We should have a word of answer from the Minister on this. He talks about what he calls the robust nationalism of my hon. Friends on this side, but he will observe that this Amendment has been moved from his own benches. While we have never ceased to object, and will not cease to object, to the extent to which the public has been exploited under a thoroughly bad scheme for 12 years in such a way that foreign investors have made large profits out of the exploitation of the British taxpayer, yet we feel that this narrow bar against foreign technicians is absurd from the British point of view.—[Interruption.] In view of the playful remarks addressed to my side of the House I want to make it plain that this Amendment came from hon. Members supporting the Government. It is true that they would like to withdraw it, but they ought to have been the last people to move such an Amendment, seeing that the interests for which they stand are exploring every foreign country for opportunities for commercial development and seeking to have British technicians—surveyors, engineers, and chemists—and British advisers of all sorts employed there. It is extraordinary that they, from that side of the House, should object to these few people who happen to be aliens being engaged in this industry.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS

And then ask them to go to Eastbourne for their holidays.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN

I wish to join in the protest against the suggestion that we on these benches have taken a narrow view on this matter. The Amendment has been drawn in such a way as to fire a shell at the technicians—the chemists and the engineers—in this industry. After all, they do something for whatever they get out of the industry, whether they are foreigners or not. What I cannot understand it why hon. Members opposite have been passive all these years when it was so well known to those of us who have looked into this industry that there were great foreign names connected with it in the initial stages. Those people could not by any stretch of the imagination be called technicians or salary drawers—Dr. Axel, Van Rosen, Dr. Schmidt and Van Loon. All those gentlemen came to this country and induced innocent John Bull to go in for sugar beet cultivation. An hon. Friend reminds me that Lord Snowden encouraged it. He afterwards reproached us on this side for our prodigality, but it was he who foisted this scheme on the country. There has never been any attempt to draw up a Clause to keep those gentlemen out of the industry, and I see no need for any Amendment to keep out only foreign parasites, because in my view there is no difference between Dutch or other parasites and those born in England. They are all the same sort of parasites.

If hon. Members opposite are going to show themselves ultra patriotic I hope they will be patriotic enough to make the net narrower and finer, not allowing in those who are mere parasites while attempting to keep out working men, who will travel to any country to look for a job. The Minister has assured us that he will see to it that in the future no foreigner will get in if he can avoid it. I wish to know whether the Irish are to be regarded as foreigners. As I come of Irish parentage, although I speak with a Scottish accent and represent an English constituency, I want to be sure that my forefathers and their children are not to be debarred as Irishmen, from coming into this industry. I hope Irishmen will be regarded as British, even in his Department, when they apply for jobs as technicians in the sugar industry.

Amendment negatived.