HC Deb 21 March 1947 vol 435 cc816-26

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

4.02 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

I wish to raise the urgent and pressing problem of unemployment among disabled persons in the North-Eastern Development Area. This is part, I should make clear, of the general problem of unemployment which is facing us in that area. We did discuss on Monday this week the general issue, and we came to the general conclusion that the slowness in factory construction was the main contributory factor to this unemployment at the moment. Unemployment, by itself, is a tragedy; but when to unemployment we also add disablement, it is, indeed, a double tragedy.

If we examine the scope of unemployment in the North-East today, we shall see that the total number of registered disabled persons at 20th January, 1947, was 54,631, and of those 8,972 were unemployed. For the whole country the proportion of unemployed to those on the register is 10 per cent. But it should be borne in mind that in the North-East the proportion is 16.5 per cent. Of our total unemployed in the North-East the disabled represent something like 18 per cent. It is impossible to say exactly how many of these are industrially disabled, and how many are disabled as a result of war service, but it is quite clear that, in an industrial area such as ours, there must be a very high proportion of men who are capable only of light work.

The figures for January show that in the region there are 2,282 coal miners unemployed; but the vast majority of these will never see a coal mine again—not, at least, to work in one; they are miners who, by reason of some disability, are now fit only for light work. The fact that the slowness of factory construction delays the introduction of light work is a serious handicap to those men. At Stockton Employment Exchange on 9th December there were 119 insured men who had been continuously unemployed for more than six months, and there were a further 111 who had been out of work for 12 months. I do not know how many of these are on the register, but the bulk of them must be men capable only of light work. I have not the exact figures, but I am informed that 19 per cent. of the total number of unemployed men on Teesside and Cleveland are classed as unskilled light labourers, and that a further 17 per cent. are registered as disabled persons, a total of 36 per cent. unfit for anything but light work.

These figures, in my opinion, stress beyond any argument the urgent necessity for the speedy introduction of alternative light employment in the region. The question I want to ask my hon. Friend is, What can his Department do about it? Under the Act of 1944, they have four main strings to their bow. First of all, by the quota system, they can introduce these disabled men into industry; then, by vocational training, they can rehabilitate them and fit them into normal employment; then, by designation, they can state specified occupations for their em- ployment; and, finally, those who fit into none of these categories can be found work in sheltered establishments.

First, on the question of the quota, is my hon. Friend satisfied that, in each Region, the quota is being really observed? I know that there are large establishments, such as steel works, where there are as many as 15 per cent. disabled employed, but I also know one large concern which is employing 7½ per cent. disabled, which is much above the quota. There is a general feeling among those now disabled and unemployed that certain employers have men who have been working for a long time registered as disabled men, thereby fulfilling the quota, and, although that is a legitimate thing under the Act, it does seem to be working against the genuine man, ex-Service or otherwise, who is unemployed. Can my hon. Friend say whether he has any evidence that any employers are escaping their duty in this respect, and can he offer any hone of an increase in the quota provision in the near future?

On the question of training facilities, the value of this training and rehabilitation cannot be over-emphasised if we are to enable these men to play their part in the main stream of competitive industry today. I was much impressed myself on a recent visit to the Government Training Centre at Aycliffe, where hundreds of men are being refitted for civilian employment, mainly in the building trades, but I must say that I was somewhat disappointed by the small number of disabled at that centre, and I would like my hon. Friend to say whether there is sufficient priority given to the disabled ex-Servicemen in these Government training centres. Then, again, can my hon. Friend say how many men have passed through the training centres in the North-East, how many are in training and what waiting list there is? I am given to understand that there is insufficient training capacity for these men at the present time.

One other point on training centres. It is all very well to train these disabled men for manual occupations, but there are many of them who are totally unfitted to follow, say, the building industry. Is the Minister sure that, in the Northern Region, there is adequate provision made for people who want to follow a professional or clerical occupation? I believe that there is one course in Middlesbrough at which 24 people are taking a shorthand-typing clerical course, but I hope we shall further extend these facilities in the region.

On the question of sheltered employment, it is probably the most heartening thing we can do for the disabled man. Let me quote a letter which I have had from a one-legged ex-Serviceman, who has been placed in employment through the working of the Disabled Persons Act. He says: I have been put to work in the rolling mill in a steelworks. It is extremely hot, and my limbs sweat and breakout. I have to go through a badly-lighted works, and it is dangerous for me. The job itself is absolutely 'blind alley,' but I will stick it until I can get something from which I can learn something. Can you please tell me what the chances are of a job at a new factory of the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation? It seems to me that these "Remploy" factories must cater for very difficult cases which cannot find their way to progress in normal industry. Can my hon. Friend say what provisions are being made in the North-East to provide these sheltered occupations?

I know there is one such factory scheduled for Newcastle, and one for Stockton-on-Tees in the near future. But I believe that there are very great delays in the preparation of these factories. I do not know whether there is any difficulty on the raw materials side, but it does seem that it will be one or two months at least before any men are placed in these "Remploy" factories. Could my hon. Friend say exactly what is meant by the official description of the type of work to be given to these men, which is classed as "light handicrafts"? Does that mean the inevitable basket making, brush making and so on? Will there be some really progressive form of employment provided in these factories? Can he say how many men he hopes to cater for in them? Is he satisfied that he will be able to absorb all these severely disabled men within a reasonable period? In this connection, will he take steps to press upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the urgent necessity for the completion of all the factories now pending in the area?

In conclusion, I should like to ask my hon. Friend if his Ministry are taking care of the many hundreds of cases of neurosis and psychosis in the area, for which there seems to be little provision at the present time. Is he satisfied that all the disabled have now registered; or are there many who are chary of registering because they feel they might be placing their jobs in jeopardy, or because they do not want to disclose the nature of their disabilities? Is he satisfied that once a man has been placed in employment there is sufficient follow up to make sure that his services are being used in the right manner? Here, I should like to pay a tribute to his officials in the employment exchanges, and to the most progressive kinds of employers in the areas, who are using scientific methods to see that these men are placed in proper employment, and that satisfactory follow up provision is made.

Let me again quote from a letter which I received from an ex-Serviceman who had served three and a half years in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp. He says: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have been demobbed seven months, and up to the present we are still signing the unemployment register. We are also receiving partial disability pensions, in some cases 20, 30 and 40 per cent. We are not asking for charity, but feel that some necessary action should be taken to place us in employment. We feel that if employment can be found for us it would take our minds off the long suffering we have had to undergo. The next letter I had from him was to the effect that he had been to the Government training centre to train as a builder. The tone of that second letter was so changed that I must put forward his view, that once he knew the Government were taking an interest in the disabled people, and that someone was looking after them, it made a wonderful difference. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is answering today, because I know of the great interest he has taken in his own South Wales in getting these industrial casualties into some kind of useful employment. I hope he will be able to give us some evidence that his Department are doing their utmost to get these industrially disabled men, as well as ex-Servicemen, into some progressive employment. We must do away with the idea that these disabled men are flotsam and jetsam cast up by the military and industrial tides, who are unable to take their part in the normal productive life of the country. I am quite convinced that the Minister will do his utmost to provide them with useful work, both in their own interests and in the wider interests of the country.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Robens (Wansbeck)

There are two points I want to put to my hon. Friend. One is in connection with the extension of the work of the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation. I was troubled when, in reply to a Question which I addressed recently to the Minister of Labour, I was informed that only 264 persons had signed on. The second is; is it the Minister's intention to schedule further occupations for these disabled people? Two have already been scheduled, and I think there should be a survey in order that a list of them could be compiled.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

I wish to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Teesside and Cleveland area is an area where the major portion of the industry in the past has been of the very heavy type, and the degree of partial disability in those types of industries has been particularly heavy. Large numbers of these people were temporarily employed during the war in munition factories. They felt they were making a contribution and were rehabilitating themselves in the industrial life of the country. That job has now come to an end and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, they have been unemployed for six months or more and feel they are being neglected. If they could he assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that considerable interest is being taken in this matter, and that something will eventuate in the near future, it will give them much satisfaction.

4.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

I am sure the problem which has been raised this afternoon is one which is bound to have the greatest possible sympathy from every Member of the House, and the manner in which it has been presented is a credit to my hon. Friends who raised it. It will be very difficult to get into the time at my disposal a general description of the Ministry of Labour's work in connection with disabled persons. If there is one section of the Ministry's work upon which there is the greatest concentration, with the greatest sympathy, it is this question of employment of disabled persons. One or two questions were put to me, and I would like to deal with them before I touch the general subject.

With regard to the development of the "Remploy" factories, we are advised by the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation that they have this matter entirely in their control by Statute, and we are informed that it is their intention to continue building this type of factory throughout the country until we have provided sheltered employment for all persons requiring it. The second point concerns the scheduling of further occupations. There is at present some doubt with regard to this scheduling process generally. The trouble is that when one schedules a job, it not only stamps the job as a disabled persons' job, but it stamps the worker as a disabled worker and singles him out for some special treatment and, as he thinks, a special recognition of his disablement which has a tendency to create an inferiority complex. The National Advisory Council for Disabled Persons is advising the Ministry, and on that council there are some very distinguished people in this field, such as Sir Brunel Cohen and others, who themselves are disabled and have been great examples of how the disabled can surmount all sorts of difficulties. We have their advice on this matter. It is being kept under active consideration, and we are awaiting their decision on scheduling further jobs solely for disabled persons.

The problem is fairly large, and we must have regard to the size of it. In the North East region I notice that it is a pretty substantial problem. The figures have been given by my hon. Friend the Member' for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and I do not desire to challenge any figure that he has quoted. As they are our own figures, they are correct, as is always the case with the statistics of the Ministry of Labour. What is the source of these disabled persons? Whence do they come? We have disabled men who are ex-Servicemen; we have disabled men who have been disabled in industry; we have others who, in the natural course of events, have become disabled because of natural deficiencies; and we have those who are born disabled. From these four sources we have in the North East Region a very substantial body of disabled persons. With regard to the numbers which are in employment, we find that a very substantial number of registered disabled persons are in employment. I think the figure is roughly that of the 54,000 registered persons 45,000 are in employment. The others are unemployed.

I have had the figures taken out as to the categories of persons who are unemployed. Those who are capable of ordinary employment total 4,636 ex-Servicemen and 2,849 civilians. With regard to those requiring sheltered employment, 772 were ex-Servicemen and 717 civilians. That is the breakdown for which I was asked. It will be noticed that of those capable of ordinary employment 62 per cent. are ex-Servicemen and of those requiring sheltered employment 54 per cent. are ex-Servicemen. Here is another figure which I am sure the House will be interested to hear. It is that of the disabled persons who are unemployed and require sheltered employment, over 50 per cent. are over 50 years of age. In other words, what happened through this registration is that there is now being disclosed to the country a volume of potential employable persons who were never previously taken into account. It is a singular thing that legislation has brought into view the fact that we have a very substantial section of our community who never had any opportunity of employment in the past. I think the present Foreign Secretary deserves every credit for having brought in this Bill when he was Minister of Labour in the previous Government.

I come now to the sources of occupational openings. There are in the North-East Region a number of heavy industries and there are a substantial number of men from the mining industry, from steel works and from other industry. We have to deal, therefore, with various types of disablement arising from industry as well as from other sources. How do we propose to deal with this problem? There ace four methods, but the most important is to increase the volume of general employment in the area. More important than singling them out individually is to put them together into some factories and then disperse them throughout the working population, thus giving them a chance as ordinary citizens and not conferring on them favours as a condition of earning their own employment.

This matter was covered, I think, on Monday evening in an Adjournment Debate, when an account was given on the potential new employment in the North-East Region, and it was then stated that there would be something like 80,000 openings when the plans had been implemented for the new factories and new employments. Many of those new employments will be employments to which these men could go, and they will be the means of absorbing the main part of these men. The second is inducing employers to adopt their methods to give employment to the unemployed disabled man. It is astonishing what many of these men can do when a machine is adopted to suit them, and many employers are doing great jobs of work in that connection and are entitled to credit for all that they are doing in making the job fit the man instead of the old method of making the man fit the job.

The next point will interest hon. Members. With regard to those disabled in the mining industry, we have asked that the restriction on men who had compensation shall be removed and that they may be allowed to go back into industry. With regard to men disabled in the mining industry, I think this will be a very substantial contribution. Again, we have also pressed the Coal Board that they themselves should voluntarily designate certain jobs for men who have been disabled in the mines, and this is additional to the agreement. The third point concerns miners with chest diseases. It has been suggested that all the ancillary appointments controlled by the Coal Board on the farms and so on, such as messengers, chauffeurs, and clerks, should be given as far as possible to men who are incapable of work in the industry but whose condition was caused by the industry. We are doing that more and more so that the industry itself shall use men who were previously thrown on to the backs of other employers or had to be maintained by the State.

I come now to the question of training the disabled. Let me say at once that they are in fact receiving their proportion of training. I had the figure by me a moment ago and the number is quite a reasonable one—I think 13.4 per cent. of the places in the training centres are now occupied by disabled persons. At the same time I would ask my hon. Friends and the disabled persons themselves to realise that in the construction of the "Remploy" factories in the north-east area we must have more bricklayers to do the building, and we have therefore had to give a rather larger proportion of the jobs to fit men who can play their part in this actual work of building the factories which will employ the disabled persons. In that respect we have had to phase the training. It is a matter for regret, but it is no use training disabled men first and then afterwards training the lit men to build the factories in which the disabled men are to find employment.

With regard to the special factories under the Disabled Persons' Corporation—the "Remploy" factories—negotiations are in hand for building them at Sunderland, Blyth, Consett, Jarrow, Durham and West Hartlepool. I know there has been delay but these "Remploy" factories must be erected on central sites which are easily accessible and fairly flat. The factory has to be built on one floor since it is useless to expect cripples to climb stairs. It will also be appreciated that these areas have almost all been mined for coal so that there is not only the difficulty of the geological conformation of the district, but also the fact that very many of the flat sites have been undermined and subsidence is very prevalent. That has been the cause of much of the delay in connection with the acquisition of suitable sites for the establishment of these factories.

In the time at my disposal I think I have covered most of the ground and dealt with the points that have been raised. I do not want again to be charged with avoiding points raised in Debate. With regard to the one-legged man who has been placed in employment in a steel rolling mill, I assure my hon. Friend that he will not be prejudiced in his chance of employment in a "Remploy" factory. As for the enforcement of the quota, the Ministry is now carrying out spot investigations, and I think it is as well that the country should know that by and large employers have played the game in making 3 per cent. of their employment possibilities available for disabled persons. There are other employers who are dodging this and using all sorts of methods for doing so, but, as I have said, the Ministry is now conducting investigations in order to discover whether employers are carrying out their legal obligations. In cases where there has been a deliberate attempt to avoid them, very serious steps will be taken and the full rigour of the law will be imposed. The fact remains that we have had very little cause for complaint in general, and most decent employers are employing more than the 3 per cent.

Finally, I should like to revert to the first point I made—that the employment of disabled persons depends, in my view, on our increasing general employment possibilities in the employment areas and it is to the more vigorous development of our factory programme in those areas to which we must look for the salvation of these disabled persons.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes past Four o'Clock.