MANPOWER AND PRODUCTION (Hansard, 30 July 1947)

§ Mr. Sparks (Acton)
I am very glad to have this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a subject of very great significance and importance to the country. In fact, the nature of the subject is so wide and so deeply affects our welfare that it is quite impossible to deal adequately with it in the space of time available in an Adjournment Debate. Therefore, I must content myself in the time at my disposal with making a few comments upon manpower and production, and a few suggestions as to how I think some of our difficulties can be overcome.
I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand) is present to answer for the Government. First, I think it is most important that we should recognise certain very significant manpower trends. The working population, or rather the population of working age, steadily declines. During the period between the two wars, we experienced a considerable volume of unemployment, and significant in that period of time was a reduction in the birth rate. Now and in the next two decades we shall be reaping the fruit in our manpower problems of the seeds which were sown in the inter-war period. It is very interesting to know that last year the population of working age was 31,659,000, but in 1951 there will be a fall of 124,000 to the figure of 31,535,000.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)
What does the hon. Member mean by working age?

§ Mr. Sparks
Working age means the age groups, in the case of men, of from 16 to 64 and in the case of women 15 to 59.

§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)
Is that in Great Britain?

§ Mr. Sparks
Yes, it is the United Kingdom. It is most important that we should realise that in this period 1946 and 1951 there will be a drop of 890,000 in the population of working age in the age groups 15 to 39. However, there is a rise in the population of working age, between the ages of 40 and 64, of 770,000. That indicates quite clearly that the older population of 40 upwards are living longer, but the younger population from 15 to 40 are a shrinking and diminishing quantity. Therefore, as the older population pass off, their places are not being taken by the younger population. In the next generation or two that is going to be a serious factor for us in replacing our existing manpower.
As I said, in 1951 we shall find ourselves 124,000 short in our population of working age. The actual working population in 1951, however, will be, in regard to men, 14,540,000, or 90.7 per cent. of the men between 15 and 64. We shall have women totalling 5,320,000, which is 34.3 per cent. of the women in age groups 15 to 59, making a total manpower of 19,860,000. That means a decline of 95,000 on last year; but the most significant thing is that in these figures there will be 355,000 fewer women in industry in 1951 than there was last year, because of the general decline in the lower age groups and the increasing reluctance of women to enter industry. That means we shall have to fill the places of those women with men whom we can inadequately spare from other work. It is, therefore, important to bear in mind that our manpower forces are a definitely diminishing factor.
On the other hand, our production needs are increasing and have been increasing for a considerable time. We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others that if we are to hold our own in the world and if we are to balance our imports and exports, we must export at least 75 per cent. more than we did in 1938. This means that we must have in the export industries approximately 2,000,000 workers. In 1939 we had 597 1,150,000 workers in the export industries, and if we are to put up production by 75 per cent. we should need 850,000 more workers. From where are they to come? It is interesting to note that, in 1939, the working population was 19,750,000, and if we take that as a basis, plus the necessity to increase our exports by 75 per cent., we shall want 850,000 more men. This will make the total labour force needed 20,600,000, but we had in April, 1947, a working population of only 20,210,000, and that figure includes the sick, the invalids and those incapable of working. As I said, we are short at the moment on 1939 standards, plus the necessity to export, of 390,000 workers to meet the export needs of the country. Here I would like to draw attention to what I consider to be a very wrong policy in these days. I have here a letter from one of my constituents, and he says this: I and 19 other men employed by a well-known firm of aircraft engineers in this district (N.W.10) and part of a large group, have been discharged because we are over 65 years of age. This became operative now as the firm have renewed a prewar rule. The action seems all the more serious as the majority of us, according to the director's farewell to us, stated that the quality of our work was excellent. The appeals of Mr. Bevin and Sir Stafford Cripps are being flouted. We are all anxious to help the speedy recovery of Britain but what hope have we at this age to appeal to a new firm for employment, even if it happens to be in the same occupation. Perhaps you might be able to stop this rot from spreading. This is symptomatic of the change taking place in many of our industries. This is an aircraft firm engaged on export trade and here are twenty men, excellent craftsmen, turned out of their jobs at 65 and their places are going to be filled by young men. Where are these men of 65 and over to get other jobs? It is important, to recognise that we should appeal to industry to retain men over 65 for so long as they can possibly be employed, especially where they are skilled craftsmen.
In addition to our export needs, what is the demand for additional labour in the home market? The housing programme provides for 750,000 permanent houses in three years. If we want 75 per cent. more production in our export industries, that means additional factory development to provide for that increased capacity. There are new town developments, especially for London and our great cities. New towns, new factories, 598 new industries and new schools are all required; and all this means an increased demand for labour. In the building industry we need at least 200,000 more men than the industry has at the present time if we hope to achieve the programme within the next few years. Then, of course, there is the question of consumer goods—furniture, bedding, linen, household goods. There is hardly a household in the country but what is threadbare and urgently in need of replenishments of many kinds. We must grow more food. That means an intensification of our agricultural production, which in turn means more labour and mechanisation.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very serious under-strength of many of our basic industries. They are short of the 1939 strength by the following percentages: Tin plate and sheet steel, 40 per cent., cotton, 26, iron foundries (not engineering), 22, wool, 21. clothing, 21, silk and rayon, 15, footwear, 15, coal, 6, bricks, tiles, etc., 30, hosiery, 36. I am anxious to know how we can improve this problem and where the solution lies. Here I might say I am sorry to see there is some confusion in the ranks of the trade union movement. We hear some trade union leaders talking about the direction of labour, some talking about the partial direction of labour, some disagreeing with direction and advocating incentives whilst others oppose incentives. I believe it is important that the trade union movement shall speak at this moment with a very clear and effective voice. I do not believe the workmen of this country need spoon-feeding and soft-soaping. They need a clear and definite lead. I believe they are quite capable in the trials ahead of bearing the burdens and shouldering the responsibility of pulling our country through its difficulties. They were quite capable of doing this during the war years and will do so in times of peace. What they need, in my view, is a clear unchallenged lead, especially from their own people in the trade union movement, as to what should be done to meet the situation.
There are obviously limitations to the direction of labour. I hope this House and the Government will not resort to the direction of labour. If they resort to it, it must be universal, otherwise it is bound to be a failure. I do not believe you will get the best out of men 599 by compelling them to do work they do not like. I believe the most important way of encouraging an increased industrial output is by the output bonus system. During the war we had an output bonus system in many of our war factories. The men knew that the more they produced and the greater the volume of their production, they correspondingly earned bonuses. Therefore, I believe we must resort to some extent to the same practice. If the workers realise that increased production is absolutely essential in order that the nation may live, I believe they will be ready and willing to respond.
I want also to say this. I believe we must look more to increasing the productivity of labour by standardisation, by the rationalisation of industrial processes, by the mechanisation of production processes and by scientific and technical research. Here, again, I would draw attention to the technical colleges. In my view they are not serving a full and proper purpose for the needs of this day and generation. They are doing excellent work, but the technical colleges are not sufficiently concentrated, upon the basic industries of mining, transport, engineering, textiles and iron and steel. Therefore, I believe it is necessary for us to expand our technical colleges and technical institutions. They have at present insufficient accommodation. I believe it is very important that in every way we should encourage into our technical colleges a larger number of students.
I think the Minister will be interested in some information I have on this matter. In 1937/1938 the number of full-time students and part-time students in technical colleges of the country was 1,311,549. In 1945/46 the number was about 16,000 fewer—1,295,566. It means that our technical colleges are not serving the wider purpose of our main generation. There is a lesser number of students, part-time and whole-day, entering our colleges for technical instruction. Take mining, one of the most important basic industries. Only 0.8 per cent. of full-time day students in technical colleges of the country were studying the technology of mining whilst 34.5 per cent. were studying art. I could give a whole list which would show that the technical 600 colleges are not really in line with the urgent needs of industrial technical research.
I would like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously time is short, and I cannot say all I would like to say, but must leave him some time. I ask the Government whether they will consider drawing up a three-year plan. I think it is most important at this time, facing the difficulties we do, that the Government should draw up a three-year plan which should be presented to the country and to all concerned, giving them an object, a target, and an ideal for which they could work. I would suggest that the basis must be, not the direction of labour or the forcing of men compulsorily into jobs, but that we should base it upon a rationing scheme of labour supply. We have rationed our foodstuffs to ensure equitable distribution. I believe that with our manpower being a shrinking quantity, if we are going to meet the increased productive needs of the nation we must acknowledge the necessity for the rationing of what is in short supply. This rationing could be based by the Government upon absolute priority to essential industries in the question of labour supplies. The secondary industries would have a lower priority and the non-essential and luxury industries should be run down and production suspended for at least three years.
We cannot afford to see our productive workers being diverted to non-essential and luxury industries merely because those industries can always go one better than the basic industries in wages or greater inducements to the workers. I believe it would be possible to arrive at common agreement if the Government would consult the employers' organisations and the trade union movement with a view to an equitable basis for drawing up a three-year plan of priorities to essential industries in the supply of labour power. I am not saying that we should drive people out of non-essential luxury industries and send them elsewhere but that we should fix a standard of priority. Then, if they are above that priority level, there should be no replacements as workers leave for one cause or another. The employment exchanges could control the supply of labour to non-essential and luxury industries in that way.

§ Mr. Carmichael (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Is that not directing labour? If a person is employed in an industry and does not like the job and leaves it and makes application, then because he is in a low-grade priority industry, the employment exchange will not redirect him. Surely, that is direction of labour?

§ Mr. Sparks
No, that is not direction of labour. You are not forcing a man to go to a specific job. All you are saying is that there is too great a labour supply in that industry and if a man leaves that job there should be no replacements sent to it until it has reduced itself to the required standard. But any man would be free to leave and enter any other industry provided it was an essential industry. If you are not going to accept that, you will have a flow into the pools and all luxury, industries and non-productive trades, and that is where the labour is going. With a serious shortage of labour power and serious prospects ahead, if we are not prepared to utilise our labour supply to the best advantage, how can we hope to cope with these problems?
I would say this in conclusion. It is, I think, a great testimony to this Government that in the two years they have been in power only 3¼ million days have been lost in strikes, whereas in the first two years after the 1914–18 war there were lost 39½ million working days. I think it is a tribute to the Government and to its policy that we have been able to reduce the time lost in industrial disputes to such a small figure. I am afraid I have taken up too much time and I have left my right hon. Friend inadequate time to answer on this very significant, deep and complicated question, but I realise and I hope that he will carry back to the Government some of the points I have raised, and so help us all.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
Concerning the letter the hon. Gentleman cited, does he mean these were men who left employment at 65 or were not up to working at 65 and were, therefore, asked to discontinue work?

§ Mr. Sparks
In regard to the letter I read out, all these men were at work and were competent and skilled. But the firm reinstated a prewar rule which provided that all workers, whether good, bad or indifferent, had to leave their employment at 65.

§ The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand)
The hon. Gentleman said he had left me inadequate time to reply. If it was impossible for him to deal with all these subjects in 25 minutes, it is all the more impossible for me to deal with them in five minutes. I do, of course, agree that the hon. Gentleman has been drawing attention in what I recognise is a most helpful and constructive spirit to many facts which the Government have already placed before the employers. I do not dispute the figures he gave on the decline of the working population. These were taken from an article in the Ministry of Labour Gazette of May, 1947, to which I am glad he has called attention. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to what is, in some ways, the most important problem of all. Between 1936 and 1939 on the average 662,000 boys and girls entered the main industries of this country every year. In 1945–1946 the number was 562,000 and because of the decline in the birth rate between the two wars, these numbers will go on declining for some time to come. It is estimated that in 1950 only about 525,000 boys and girls between 14 and 17 will enter industry.
These are facts which employers as a whole ought to know if there are any who do not know them yet. They should adjust their employment to that prospective shortage of juvenile labour and therefore I emphasise what the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has said about it being a wrong policy to discharge elderly employees where there is a shortage of labour. It is a wrong policy. It is not, of course, the policy of the Government, which has appealed to employers wherever there is a shortage of labour, to continue those people in employment, and has indeed adjusted the Insurance Act to give some incentive to older workers to stay on in industry.
I agree there is still need for some increase in the numbers working on exports, though I think, we have not yet seen the full output from the numbers already so employed. The hon. Member was right in emphasising the shortage of manpower, which was the whole burden of the argument in the economic White Paper. He was right also in emphasising that if the workers are given a clear lead they are capable of dealing with the situation, and giving the increased productivity which 603 the situation requires. I am glad he indicated his own willingness to help in giving that lead, for it cannot be given by the Government only; it must be given also by Members like himself who have had wide experience in trade union matters. We welcome the assistance all hon. Members on this side can give in this matter, and confidently rely on the support of all men of good will in trying to increase the productivity of the working population—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on the Opposition side."] I said all men of good will. If the cap fits I am glad the hon. Member has put it on.
In regard to the decline in the numbers of people in technical colleges, I am not sure that the hon. Member took fully into account the decline in the juvenile population. I suspect that if he examines the figures he may find that part of the explanation is simply the decline in the 604 number of young persons of an age to go to technical colleges. I am glad to say that the Government are doing their best to encourage the study of industrial technique at these colleges, and that there are courses in progress at 601 colleges, covering 100 specialised trades. But there are so many matters to touch on, and so little time in which to do it, that I can only say that in calling on the Government to draw up a three-year plan he was asking them to carry out what they have announced their intention of doing, but whether it is a plan for three years or four I am not going to prophesy.