WAR PRODUCTION PLANS

HC Deb 19 January 1943 vol 386 cc38-44

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton)

I should like to take this, which' is the earliest, opportunity of making a short statement to the House about our war production plans for 1943, and particularly about certain developments taking place, which might otherwise lead to misunderstanding in industry and elsewhere. Nineteen forty-three will be a peak year in our war production; and the total labour force employed in the munitions industries during the year will considerably exceed the numbers employed in 1942. In order to obtain the additional labour force required and at the same time to satisfy the requirements of the Forces, there will have to be, by means of concentration or otherwise, further withdrawals of labour from the less essential industries and further mobilisation of women into industry, both for munitions work and as replacements for those transferred from the less essential industries. At the same time transfers of labour within the munition industries themselves must take place. In 1943 our plans demand that the increased emphasis should be placed on the manufacture of ships, of aircraft, of anti-U-boat devices, of tanks, and of certain specialised types of Army equipment. There are other types of equipment where the production and the stocks which we have accumulated are already very great. In these cases we can afford, and it is necessary, to plan reductions in our programmes. In this way we shall achieve the requisite increase in output of weapons of all classes needed for maximum impact on the enemy during 1943.

Managers and workers who are affected by the changes in programmes which I have just described must realise that, notwithstanding any temporary dislocation that may occur, these changes are part of an ordered plan. If men and women find themselves being transferred to new work they will understand that it is because the new work is even more vitally important than that upon which they were previously engaged. If there is some temporary dislocation to management or to labour, the great and insistent demand for man and woman-power will quickly reabsorb them into new activities.

I would appeal to Members of this House, whose influence can be of so much importance in their constituencies, as well as to the managements of all companies, to give every assistance to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service in his difficult task, by explaining to their workpeople why the changes are necessary. If they are understood, doubt and uncertainty will not occur. In conclusion, I would emphasise that the number affected by these changes will, by comparison with the total number engaged, be small; for, as I have said, the coming year will be a peak year in our war production, and the total numbers employed as a whole will be much greater than in 1942. In short, while our plans necessitate certain changes in the production lines, the total volume of output must mount steadily. I am confident of our ability to achieve these objectives.

Mr. Stokes

Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of informing the House more precisely as to the Government's intentions with regard to the production of tanks, and particularly tank engines, and has he anything to tell the House about his visit to the United States?

Mr. Lyttelton

I will certainly take an early opportunity if one is offered to me.

Sir H. Williams

As it is proposed that we should discuss this matter in Secret Session on the next two Sitting Days, and as the Minister has appealed to us to explain to our constituents what it is all about, shall we not be put into a very difficult position if we do not abandon the plan for a Secret Session? The vagueness of the Minister's statement passes comprehension. If it is to be explained in Secret Session, Members will be in an impossible position.

Mr. Lyttelton

The reason I made this statement is so that the information should be made public.

Mr. Bellenger

Will the right hon. Gentleman elucidate further the question of whether these plans contemplate substantial transference of labour from one locality to another, or whether the reorganisation will take place only in the existing factories?

Mr. Lyttelton

There will be a certain transference from one part of the country to another; but the object, naturally, is to reduce that to a minimum. The transference to which I am referring is from one side of munitions production to another.

Mr. James Griffiths

As I gather that the proposals the Minister has outlined involve fairly substantial transfers of labour from one industry to another, might I ask whether that policy has been considered by the trade unions?

Mr. Lyttelton

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths

And agreed?

Mr. Lyttelton

The Government, I think, must be the judges of what types of munitions are to be made; but the fullest consultation has taken place regarding these transfers, and every effort will be made to effect them with the least possible dislocation.

Mr. Simmonds

Would my right hon. Friend repeat the assurance which he gave to the House before Christmas, that in the case of vital war industries the Minister of National Service would not remove men and women from the industries where the Supply Departments concerned stated that the production in those units was essential? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] This is a very vital point. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the assurance that he gave the House in previous circumstances, before Christmas, that the Minister of National Service will not remove from essential war work men and women for transfer unless the Supply Department interested in the production of the undertaking concerned has been consulted and has confirmed the view that the change is in the national interest?

Mr. Lyttelton

Certainly, I can give that general assurance.

Sir Irving Albery

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers readily make any sacrifice which is called for, provided that there is a proper measure of equality in the sacrifice, but that there are at present considerable grievances about transfer, in respect both of pay and of hours, and will he have that matter looked into?

Mr. Lyttelton

We have that particular point very much in mind. I am afraid there will occasionally be inequalities.

Mr. Kirkwood

The Minister asked Members of Parliament to use their influence in their constituencies, because, as he forecast, there was bound to be trouble when he started to shift men and women from one district to another. Is he aware that the Minister of Labour is introducing the opposite policy, of saying—and saying to me in particular time and again—"Do not interfere at all; leave it to the trade union movement." But I have settled disputes which the trade union movement have failed to check. What is the policy of the Government? Is it to allow themselves to be saddled with a dictatorship by the Minister of Labour, who is trying to push his cause? [Interruption.] I know what I am up against, and I am prepared to face even the Minister of Labour. This is a very serious business—very serious for me, because I have been a member of my trade union for 50 years, although not a paid trade union agitator. Is the policy of the Government the policy that the Minister of Labour tries to lay down, that Members of Parliament who are members of trade unions should not use their influence to get things put right? Is the Minister still in favour of our using the House of Commons, which I hope is still the most important body in this country? I will use it to fight for my class.

Mr. Lyttelton

On this matter I take a very simple view. The policy of the Government is to make the right weapons and at the same time to transfer labour with as little disturbance as possible from one district to another. The statement which I have just read to the House was agreed upon with the Minister of Labour. It is a perfectly simple matter, and I asked Members of the House to explain in the country that, owing to the existence of stocks and so forth, some quite drastic changes in our production lines were about to take place.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has stated and the obvious effect which the Government's proposals will have upon the lives and occupations of a vast number of people in this country, may I ask him to consider, with the Leader of the House, whether it would not be in the public interest that the Debate on man-power, which will affect everybody in this country and is arousing wide interest, should take place in public instead of in Secret Session? May I also submit that it will be almost impossible for Members of Parliament, after hearing the Debate in secret, to answer questions from their constituents without, in some way, running the risk of appearing to disclose what has taken place in Secret Session?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden)

That, as my hon. Friend has put it, appears to be a matter for me. I am, of course, always ready to consider these things, and we did weigh these points very carefully before we took the decision to have the Debate in Secret Session. For the moment I would like to stand by that decision. I think we should have our Debate as arranged. I think the House would like to have information which can be given only in Secret Session. Naturally, I will consider meanwhile the points which have been raised and consult my colleagues about what has been said.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood

May I put this point? This procedure which has been adopted rather prejudices the coming Debate. Would it not have been better in the circumstances, so as not to confuse the public mind, that whether the Debate was public or private, the statement of the Minister should have been made when the matter was before the House?

Mr. Eden

It is difficult for us to arrange these things successfully all round, and my right hon. Friend wished to give the House the earliest information— information which he was, in any event, going to make public. I am afraid it is my fault, but I do encourage my colleagues to give the House the earliest information wherever that is possible.

Mr. Rhys Davies

In view of the very serious statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that some of us on this side of the House have already a Motion on the Paper showing that great alarm is being caused in connection with the distribution of foodstuffs in this country, and that shops have been denuded of workers to such an extent that there may be some difficulty in distributing food, because the Government assume all along the line that the greatest reservoir for man- and woman-power is the distributive trades?

Mr. Stephen

Can the Minister give us an assurance in connection with this development of policy that there will be no further draining of man- and woman-power from Scotland, in view of the heavy drain which has already been made on that country?

Sir H. Williams

rose—

Mr. Stephen

On a point of Order. May I have an answer to my question, which is of great importance to Scotland? I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the circumstances of Scotland will be taken into account, in view of the big drain which is being made on man- and woman-power from Scotland?

Mr. Lyttelton

I can give no such general assurance, but I can assure the hon. Member that no unfair treatment will be meted out to Scotland and that all these cases will be very carefully considered.

Mr. Granville

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's original answer, if it is intended to send more workers to certain industrial towns of which he knows, will he take into consideration the fact that at present there is great overcrowding in these industrial areas; and will he communicate with the Minister of Health with a view to giving local billeting committees greater powers to enable them to make better billeting conditions?

Sir H. Williams

On a point of Order. I rose to put a question, and you, Sir, called me, but I gave way because I understood that another hon. Member wished to raise a point of Order. Then you, Sir, declined to call me when I rose a second time. Does that mean that a point of Order can be used in order to prevent a Member who has already been called by you from putting his question?

Mr. Speaker

That does not appear to me to be a point of Order at all.

Mr. Gallacher

Will the Minister consider whether he could not get much better results, not by transferring the workers but by transferring—[An HON. MEMBER: "The War?".]—control of firms to the men in a whole series of rotten managements that are in the industries at the present time?

Sir Adam Maitland

In the application of the proposals submitted to-day, will the Minister ask the production Departments in particular to approach the new arrangements in such a way as to avoid uncertainty as much as possible? Will he see that in the decisions made in connection with this arrangement the two factors of definiteness and certainty are brought into operation; and is he aware that if he does so, he will receive the co-operation not only of this House but of industrialists, both managements and employees?

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot Debate the matter on this occasion.