EX-SERVICE TRAINEES (EMPLOYMENT) (Hansard, 2 July 1947)

§ Mr. Drayson (Skipton)

The subject I wish to raise tonight is that of the employment and experiences of ex-Service men after they have received training at Ministry of Labour training centres. I have been particularly interested in this problem, not only while I was in the Forces, but since I left them. I had the opportunity prior to demobilisation of studying the general demobilisation plans, and I took the opportunity of visiting not only the centres but the appointment hoards to see how they work. The principal centre which I visited was the Ministry of Labour Centre at Leeds, and I was impressed there by the training being given to the ex-Service men, particularly the great assistance being given to those who had been disabled I was impressed by the special tools which had been adapted to assist them to earn their livelihood. A complete set of these, I was informed, was presented to them when they had completed their courses.

I would like to make it clear that, in raising this matter, I imply no criticism of anyone in my own constituency. In the Skipton Division they are both industrially progressive and politically enlightened. But I have had letters from constituents in which they have said that whenever they have gone to seek employment elsewhere in the country, having done this necessary training, they have come up against many difficulties. Since it was known that I was raising this matter on the Adjournment in the House of Commons, I have had a large correspondence from all over the country dealing with the experience of other ex-Service men After this evening I propose to send the 1470 letters to the hon. Members for the constituencies from which the letters come, so that they can deal with them.

More recently my attention has been focused on the training of trainees by a report in the "Daily Despatch" of 29th April of the experience which building trainees were having at Bolton on the Bolton Corporation's housing scheme.

The reference is as follows: Faced with the sack because Bolton Corporation workers will not work with them, two ex-Service men were 'sent to Coventry.' One of them, who had been a prisoner of war since Calais, said he did not receive less comradeship from the Germans when he was a prisoner than he has from the men he is. now working with. Similar experiences were mentioned by another ex-Service man, and so on. The ex-Service men say that if the other workers would only consider what they have lost by their service in the war, they would not act as they do. It was mooted that the local council were about to pass a resolution that they would not continue to employ ex-Service men trainees on their building projects because it was holding up the housing programme, but I was glad to learn at a later stage that they had settled differences with workers on the site and had agreed to stand by the agreement made previously with the union to the effect that a certain number of trainees should be employed.

This matter has also been raised in the House by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), but I would like to draw the attention of the House to one of the many pamphlets which were issued to ex-Service men on their demobilisation. There is one called "For Your Guidance," and it says there, under the heading "Vocational training schemes," If you need to be trained for a new job, or to resume training interrupted by your war service, intensive courses of training are available in a wide variety of occupations. On completion of training you will be accepted fully as craftsmen by both employers and trades unions in their particular industry. I draw the attention of the House to that last line which says that they would be accepted fully as craftsmen by both employers and trades unions in their particular industry. This whole project had the full co-operation of all parties in this House when it was first envisaged, and, of course, at the General Election, all 1471 Members realised, if they were elected, the responsibilities they would owe to the returning ex-Service man. I could quote a number of promises made by Members of the party opposite, but I confine myself to a few remarks made by the present Home Secretary in saying that he pledged himself, as a member of the Labour Party, to work unceasingly to secure for ex-Service men full employment in happiness and prosperity and all the liberty they had won, and, again, the Secretary of State for Air said: You will be given every assistance to reinstate yourselves in civil life after demobilisation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply was even more bold in his statement and he said: The Labour Party will guarantee jobs for all ex-Service men and women a guarantee in that case, and not merely the expression of a promise or a hope. These promises make rather pathetic reading when we consider the position at the present time. My main remarks tonight will be confined to the building trade because my experience in the Forces was that we all realised the tremendous amount of damage that had been done to the houses in the country, and we felt that in the building trade at least there would be steady employment for many many years to come. Therefore, many men decided that they wanted to change their occupation and become employed in the building trade. The Minister told me the other day that there are in fact, approximately 20,000 men in training and 12,000 waiting to take part in this course.

One of the questions I want to put to the Minister tonight is whether he is intending to close down the building trade training centres. I have here a report from the newspaper "Reveille" which says that the closing down of the Government bricklaying training centres is being requested by the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers. A representative of that union said to the newspaper concerned that there are now so many bricklayers that, with the present crisis, and what with the brick and timber famine, it is ridiculous to turn out trainees to thrust them on the dole. That was very disquieting news to any ex-Service man who wanted to take up training in the building trade. I ask the Minister 1472 whether he intends to close down these centres set up for the building trade! I understand that it was a promise made by the unions during the war that they would accept 200,000 trainees into the building trade. How many have they accepted so far? The real trouble is the fact that the Government Ministers responsible for building materials and building programme have completely slipped up on their job. There are not the materials to build the houses, but it is up to the Government to fulfil the pledges they gave during and since the war to the returning ex-Service men.

Under the Control of Engagement Order, a business is only allowed to get operatives between the ages of fifteen and eighteen after obtaining the written consent of the Minister, and when they apply to the Minister they say that they have no building operatives available and if they say that they will submit trainees, they are told that the Building Advisory Committee will not permit trainees to be employed, I understand unless there is one qualified craftsman for each trainee. If the craftsmen are not there, you cannot employ apprentices. Would the Minister say whether it is possible, without infringing existing rules, that building firms could employ trainees when craftsmen are not available? It is possible, I am told, for the employers to train these men in gangs under a competent craftsman. I am told that barely half the types of training set out as available in the Government pamphlets are, in fact, available for the ex-Service men. Commanding officers, when discussing the problems of demobilisation with the men, tell them that these courses will be available on demobilisation within a very short time, but they find, after a very considerable wait, that the fact that they are on the list and waiting to go on a course prevents them from obtaining suitable employment in the meantime. Any criticism of the trainees and the work they do must ultimately reflect on the training which they get at these training centres. There are picked instructors and craftsmen taken from the industry who are acceptable to the unions concerned.

As regards membership of a union, which is a sore point, I suggest that a representative of the union should be present when the men take their final passing-out test, and they should be given their 1473 union cards equivalent to the grade on which they have passed out. That would save a lot of trouble later on when they take a job. Could there be a separate register which classified those men who are ex-Service men and not those who had come from some other industry, and who were going through a training centre to be rehabilitated for another job? Ex-Service men feel that they would like to have some special priority and not merely be regarded along with the other trainees.

The House and the country owe a debt to these ex-Service men. They have missed six years during the war, when they could have been bettering themselves in industry, and it is distressing to hear of the difficulties which they experience when, having passed a course, they try to take their place among the labour forces of the country. I thank the Minister for coming here tonight to answer this adjournment. I was afraid the Parliamentary Secretary might be here; if he used once more the phrase he used previously in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), that people were trying to gate-crash into industry, it would be unfortunate in this respect. I am glad I have had the opportunity of focusing the attention of the House on the problem of ex-Service men's training, because I know they are having difficulties in finding suitable employment when they have done their courses.

§ Mr. Isaacs

Trainees, yes. In his initial remarks, he said he was going to deal with the employment and the experience of trainees. Until he began to talk about experience, I had no idea what his case was going to be. He has mentioned other matters on which I am informed and about which I have some knowledge. In general we are in complete agreement with his point, and we are anxious to carry out the pledges 1474 given, not only by my party but by everyone in the House, on the question of training facilities for ex-Service men. It was agreed by the Coalition Government that preference must be given to the ex-Service men and I think the House can be proud of the way in which we are carrying that out.

First of all, may I thank the non Member for what he said about the training provided in his own city. Let me assure him that what he saw in Leeds was typical of what is being done everywhere else.' We are doing—only with the co-operation of industry—a first class job, and we hope we turn out good workmen. The hon. Member then referred to an article in the "Daily Despatch" referring to the treatment of some men in Bolton. We know about that, and we know the steps that were taken to break down that position. I know of no other case in which that kind of thing has occurred. It must be borne in mind, how ever, that the existence there of some men on the job who declined to work with ex-Service trainees was broken down by the insistence of the men's own union that they must honour the pledges that had been given. In that respect, may I deal with a point the hon. Member raised towards the end of his speech. He suggested that membership of unions should be provided for the men as they leave the training centres. In fact, they take up membership of unions before they leave the training centres, and are admitted to the unions before they leave that place and go to a job.

There are other problems that trouble us, such as providing a follow-up of training. The House must bear in mind that if I restrict myself to a particular trade, it will save time—for instance, the building trade. A man who goes out after six months' training is not a finished workman. He is a well-informed man with the rudiments of the trade in his fingers, but he has not yet sufficient experience. Therefore, he has to go to a firm after his six months as—what we used to call him—an improver: no longer an apprentice, not yet a craftsman, but halfway between the two. Care must be taken that he goes to a firm that can complete his training, and that is why we must insist that when he goes to another place, it must be a place where they can train him. There are some employers who will take men half-trained and get 1475 them no further, using them only as cheap labour and not giving them the training they require. Therefore, in the interests of ex-Service men, we insist—the Government, the employers and the workers— that there must be someone who can give them adequate training.

There are one or two other points I should like to mention. First, there is the query about the closing down of the training centres. We do not intend to close down any of our training centres until we have satisfied the needs of the country. It is true that at the moment, owing to the fuel shortage, the crisis in the early part of the year, and the slowing-up of materials, some ex-Service trainees are unemployed. Therefore, it would be folly while we are turning out 950 men a week—which is roughly the intake and output each week from our centres—to take in more men and find that in a few months' time there is no work for them. If I have enough time, I should like to give some figures to show what the position is, and I am sure they will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter. We do not take the credit for this as a Government or a Ministry, because it is what the country generally is doing.

In our training centres there are 23,000 ex-Service men at the present moment. There is a waiting list of 9,500 for the building trade, and we will have adequate opportunities of taking them in as soon as materials justify us doing so. The over-all picture in regard to trainees might be given in this way. Up to now there have been 33,500 in Government centres for the building trade and 4,000 for other trades, while in technical colleges there have been 2,800. There are 37,500 already actually at the trade, and 23,000 others in the training centres. We have taken care to provide facilities for em- 1476 ployment in the building trade for about 66,000 up to the present moment.

I think that shows that every effort is being made to carry out the promise which has been given by the Government. Training will be proceeded with. There are little difficulties about placing men at the moment. Those difficulties are because of several matters. First, men are trained in a certain trade, but there are no vacancies for that trade in the man's town, although there are vacancies in another town. Because of family responsibilities, or for some such reason, the trained man is unable to go to the nearby town, or if he does go there are no lodgings available for him. Thus it is that in many cases we find trained men unwilling to leave home. There is also the matter of the shortage of raw materials. Strangely enough, some of our training is held up through shortage of tools, but those things are getting a move on now. That is not so much directly related to the building industry, but it has reference to other industries.

I can assure the hon. Member for Skipton and the House that we wish to proceed with this matter. We do not intend to allow difficulties to deflect us from our course. Of the people who are going into our training centres, over 90 per cent. are ex-Service men and a number of those have been unable to find work because of the circumstances which I have mentioned. We shall resist attempts by anybody to put obstacles in the way of those men we are training from taking up the work for which we have trained them. I think the hon. Member for Skipton will now see that the Government are doing everything possible in the circumstances.