HC Deb 19 March 1947 vol 435 cc548-58

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Michael Stewart.]

11.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

I assure the hon. Lady that I should not have requested her presence at this late hour, or, indeed, detained you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the Chair but for the fact that I have been balloting for this Adjournment since before Christmas. Having at last been successful, I cannot throw away this golden opportunity. In October last, an important organisation in my constituency, the Beverley Service Welfare Bureau, which handles all problems which concern the proper conduct of assistance to Servicemen, expressed anxiety about the difficulty of returning soldiers in finding employment. Their investigations covered a wide field, including Government Departments. I was approached to try to find out what sort of percentage of ex-Servicemen and women were, in fact, so employed. The two Departments in which they showed primary interest were the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food.

I accordingly tabled the necessary Questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture was immediately forthcoming, and supplied me with a figure of 67 per cent., which I admit at once is entirely satisfactory. I was not so fortunate with the Minister of Food. I tabled a Question to him last Session, on 4th November, asking what percentage of ex-Servicemen and women were employed by his Department, giving separate calculations for each sex, and distinguishing between those temporarily and permanently employed. He replied that the information could not be supplied without an undue expenditure of time and labour. However, when the new Session came upon us, I tried again. The right hon. Gentleman was the first Minister on the list, I put the Question down again on 2nd December. The right hon. Gentleman referred me to his previous reply, and I then put this supplementary question: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down an identical Question to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and an informative reply was forthcoming in seven days? To this, the Minister of Food replied: Yes, but my right hon. Friend has the good fortune to have a very much smaller staff and Department to deal with."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, and Dec., 1946; Vol. 431, c. 2.] It was at that point that I gave notice that I intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment, which at long last has now come my way. First of all, I must comment on the revealing nature of that reply. It really is rather interesting that a far smaller staff are engaged in the work of production of food than is engaged in what I must describe as its maldistribution. I have endeavoured to make some inquiries into the situation, and the first evidence I could get came from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech in the House on 7th March. Replying to some observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), she said: He must take into account that we employ very many married women. I think I gave the figure for Liverpool the other day—there are about 40 per cent. married women there—and throughout the country many of these workers are part-time, and we are very glad to have their services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 871.] That takes us a certain distance along the road. Yesterday, we had some more information. It was, perhaps, fortunate that I was not able to raise the matter until tonight, after all. Yesterday, we were informed that there are 2,000 more officials in the Ministry of Food, and that there is an increase in the Estimates on account of salaries of this Department of £563,000. I am bound to remark that in this Ministry the staff appears to increase in inverse ratio to the supplies available to the public, and I think we should know a bit more about it. There is a famous nursery rhyme about the old woman who lived in a shoe, and had so many children she did not know what to do. No one would be so unchivalrous and so far divorced from the truth as to apply that description to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think it could reasonably be applied to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food. He has so many children that he does not know what they do, or at least is not prepared to tell us in the House. I submit that the House is entitled to know to what extent ex-Service men and women are getting opportunities of employment under this Ministry. I would like to say, in parenthesis, however, and in all good temper, that I hope none of them is engaged in the task of snooping. I hope they were not concerned in the instance in Brighton where an official and his typist went to dine at a restaurant—in agreeable circumstances—in the hope of coaxing the waitress into committing some breach of the regulations from which a prosecution could result. That would be abhorrent to ex-Service men and women of all kinds. I hope they are not engaged in the scrutiny of anonymous letters, which we have been informed form an important part of the intelligence system of the Ministry of Food, but which every hon. Member puts into the nearest wastepaper basket.

There has been a veil of secrecy over the Ministry of Food for some time. My hon. Friends have endeavoured on many occasions to obtain information about some of these bulk purchase transactions, and they have not been fortunate in that matter. I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit to lift at least one corner of the veil when she makes the observations which I know she will make tonight. I wish to make a further observation. I am sorry that the Minister is absent from the House. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here, I would like to have said it to him, but perhaps the hon. Lady will be good enough to convey to him what I am about to say. During the war, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food performed an important function as one of the publicity experts of the Royal Air Force. We all remember those excellent broadcasts he used to give from time to time on the work of that very great body of men, the Royal Air Force, and it is very disappointing to me that one who was so successful in that sphere should have closed up like an oyster—oysters are still obtainable, I believe, in luxury establishments—in the matter of giving information about the Ministry over which he presides. I think it is a very disappointing development, and one which the House is entitled to probe, because we really are interested in this matter of the placing in employment of ex-servicemen and women. I make it a matter of complaint that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it worth while to give this information when the question was first tabled in November, or when it was tabled again in December. I cannot believe that this information is unobtainable. It is forthcoming from other Departments, and I suggest that if it is really unobtainable, it reflects upon the efficiency of this Department. However, I have come down here more in a spirit of hope, than in a spirit of criticism. I have a feeling that the hon. Lady is going to satisfy my curiosity. I believe she sits there armed with the necessary information, at least, in general, which we are seeking, and it is with that hope that I raise this matter.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Raikes (Liverpool, Wavertree)

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) for having raised, at this late hour of the night, a matter of considerable public importance, and one which deserves an answer from the Ministry. One of the tragedies at the end of a great war is to find so many ex-Servicemen walking the streets—as they were even before the crisis—totally unable to get employment, particularly men with small disability pensions. A short time ago I asked the hon. Lady what was the percentage of married women employed in the Food Office in the city of Liverpool, and what was the percentage of ex-Servicemen. The hon. Lady, with her usual charm, gave a perfectly frank answer, the figures being 40 per cent. married women and about 14 per cent. ex-Servicemen. I asked the hon. Lady as a supplementary question would it not be better, in view of the need of ex-Servicemen for employment if the percentages were reversed. She gave a twofold answer. She said, first, that we were dealing with a food office where there were permanent and non-permanent staff, and it would be quite improper that permanent workers, who had been there for years and had pension rights and so on, should be displaced simply because there were ex-Servicemen needing jobs. That was a perfectly reasonable part of her answer, but the second half was that married women were now being encouraged to go into industry. That, in regard to this particular case, was bunkum, because, whatever a food office is, it is certainly not a productive industry—far from it.

Of course, permanent employees with pension rights and everything else cannot be displaced by persons from outside. On the other hand, there is a considerable number of temporary jobs where a far greater preference should be given to ex-Servicemen than is given at the present time. We have on one side married women, whose husbands are in reasonable jobs, engaged in some Ministry or other, though, of course, we are only dealing with one particular Ministry tonight. On the other hand there are these married men who have fought either in this war or the last, some of whom have got a slight disability pension but who are suited to take small clerical jobs, who are debarred from these jobs which will give them money. They are cut out, in some instances, by women whose husbands already have substantial jobs. It seems to me that that really is a tragedy. The Ministry ought to be made to give a greater preference to ex-Servicemen and particularly the ex-Serviceman with a small disability pension.

The House no doubt remembers the old story of prewar days—I am afraid that it could not happen today—of the man who went into the butcher's shop and asked for some mutton. The butcher replied, "Oh, yes, here is a beautiful leg of mutton, as tender as a woman's heart." To which the man answered, "Oh, good heavens, take it away then, and give me a pound of sausages." I hope that the hon. Lady will remember that, and will indicate in her reply that there is no set war as between married women and ex-Service men; that she and her Ministry are anxious to give a real opportunity to the men who have suffered and struggled, either in this war or the last, and to remember that all women who are married—or most of them—are lucky in that they have husbands earning good money.

11.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill)

Most hon. Members will join with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) in desiring to see all ex-Service men and women settled in suitable jobs. but I should point out that, whether men and women who have not served in the war should be replaced by those who have, is not a matter for my Ministry. It is a matter for the Treasury in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour. I think that the hon. and gallant Member should explain very carefully to the organisation which asked him to raise this matter that, on 8th October, 1946, the Ministry of Labour reaffirmed the policy against giving any preference to ex-Service personnel, and this was sponsored by the Coalition Government in 1945. Therefore, my Ministry, although it views with great sympathy an application for an ex-Service man or woman for a job, and tries always to place that man or woman, cannot shoulder the responsibility for settling all these ex-Service people who apply for jobs. This is a matter to be settled by the Government as a whole and, of course, this has been decided.

Mr. Raikes

Does the hon. Lady suggest that this House is entirely bound by a statement made by the Coalition Government before the end of the war?

Dr. Summerskill

No, but it is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Food to settle ex-Service men and women. I think, when I give the explanation and the figures, the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness will understand why my right hon. Friend said that the conditions in the Ministry of Food are entirely different from those in the Ministry of Agriculture. In the first place, there are only 5,900 people in the Ministry of Agriculture, against 46,000 in the Ministry of Food, and those in the Ministry of Agriculture are mostly permanent officials.

I should also explain that the reason why it was administratively difficult for us to give this information was that our officials are distributed throughout the country, while those in the Ministry of Agriculture are mostly at headquarters, and I am told that these files are kept at headquarters. The Ministry of Agriculture consists chiefly of permanent officials. The Ministry of Food is comprised as to the great majority of temporary workers, in fact 98 per cent. In order to obtain some information for the hon. and gallant Gentleman I asked our officials to examine and break down the numbers of staff employed at headquarters and in the headquarters offices, that is, excluding Oxford. There are 6,000 people employed, of whom 1,890 or 30 per cent. are ex-Service, and of the permanent staff, 356 out of 962, or 37 per cent. are ex-Service personnel. Now, if we tried to obtain the figures for the whole country it would mean examining outside headquarters, the personal files of 40,000 people who are distributed in 13,000 or more offices and I think the hon. and gallant Member would agree with me that our staffs at the moment are very hard pressed. We have not calculated how many man hours that research would take but when my right hon. Friend said that the task which he was asked to undertake was of much greater magnitude than that of the Ministry of Agriculture he was quite correct.

May I say a word for those serving in our local food offices? I think hon. Mem- bers will agree with me that in a total war is is not necessarily the individual who wears uniform who faces the greatest danger, and those people throughout the country working as they did in many vulnerable areas, kept this food machine of ours working without, I think, any serious breakdown of any kind. I know myself of a number of food offices which were blitzed. I know full well many of the people, including married women, who faced up to all sorts of perils, and I hesitate to say that because these people were not called up, they should not at this stage be given the same consideration as those who were called up. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that those who experienced war on the Home Front showed as great a degree of bravery as those who were abroad, and it is very difficult today to say that a person who had not been directed to the Services should receive different treatment. Many of the men and women with the Food Ministry and other Ministries were directed there during the war. An individual could not choose his or her work. Many were encouraged to stay in the Ministry of Food and some were directed there, rather than to the Services. The hon. and gallant Member surely would not ask us to displace these people by ex-Service personnel.

May I say a word about married women? In the "Evening News" tonight I saw a cartoon which I think was very appropriate and to which I would like to direct the attention of the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes). I must confess I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member's remarks because I remember that during the war he and I attended an unforgettable meeting in the North of England where he encouraged married women to learn to shoot and I supported him. We presented a united front on that occasion. We felt that if the Huns came, married women would be quite as capable of shooting at them and defending their homes, as would single women or men. I know the enthusiasm which the hon. Member expressed for the attitude which the women were showing in those days. Yet he comes to the House tonight and says, "These women must be replaced." I would direct his attention to the cartoon in the "Evening News". It depicts an official from the Ministry of Labour going into the kitchen of a harassed woman standing over the sink, and offering her a bouquet and a large box of chocolates, to tempt her to come out of the kitchen and into industry.

Mr. Raikes

But not into the Ministry of Food.

Dr. Summerskill

But if we remove a woman from the Ministry of Food, it may simply be creating a vacancy which will be filled by somebody who could be doing a job in a factory perhaps or in some place which would be more productive than the Food Ministry. I should have thought that after last week's Debate it would be a retrograde step for us tonight to say that married women are prohibited from working. I can assure the hon. Member that married women today are not doing a job for the sake of whiling away a few hours or for a little pin money. The married woman who works today is, in fact, doubling her output by doing a job in the factory or the Ministry of Food and doing a job at home. After she does her job in the Ministry of Food, she has to queue for food very often, and has to go home and do a physically arduous job scrubbing her house and doing the chores. I have never observed restrictive practices operating to prevent married women overworking. I would also remind the hon. Member that in the home, the married woman is not legally entitled to one penny for her labours, so do not let us decry her that small measure of economic independence which she might enjoy outside.

Mr. Raikes

Would the hon. Lady agree that almost all married women contrive to get the greater part of their husbands' wages?

Dr. Summerskill

I would not. The hon. Member would be surprised how many married women do not know what their husbands earn. Finally, I must remind hon. Members who have raised this matter—I hope that as far as figures are concerned that I have been able to satisfy them—that in the last war, except for a very few people, most men and women in this country were pulling their weight. Those men and women who were working in the Ministry of Food did serve a very useful purpose and are doing so now. Many of them are highly skilled. Hon. Members who listen to questions on food being answered from this Box must know that the Ministry of Food today is the biggest trading concern in the world, and these men and women who serve in the food offices require a detailed knowledge of matters which concern every kind of commodity. We cannot lightly dispense with their services, but I can assure hon. Members that we shall continue to regard sympathetically every application from ex-Service men or women made to the Ministry of Food.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.