UNEMPLOYED EX-SERVICE MEN

HC Deb 25 November 1949 vol 470 cc722-50

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

3.7 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

I am much obliged to the Minister of Labour for coming to the House to take part in this Debate, which concerns unemployed ex-Service men, particularly those who are over 40 years of age. This matter has been discussed, from time to time, in the life of this Parliament and the previous Parliament. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in winding up a Debate opened by the present Foreign Secretary: In addition—this is an important point, which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be pleased to learn—our exchanges will be particularly instructed that in selecting applicants for jobs, they must see that ex-Service men are not placed at a disadvantage through lack of recent experience of civilian employment. I believe that these arrangements will give the ex-Service man a really fair chance of any employment that is going."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1945; Vol. 410, c. 2586.] The right hon. Gentleman has been sympathetic in dealing with this problem. He has gone out of his way to see that these men get reasonably good treatment commensurate with their war service, but I notice that recently not quite the same sympathy has been shown. The "over 40's," as they are called, are not a small body of men, and many of them are out of work and suffering severe poverty. Many are perhaps 52 or 53 years of age, which means that they have served in both wars—in the first for five years and the second for six to seven years, making a total of 12 years' military service on behalf of the country. They are at a real disadvantage compared with men who have been employed in industry during the war. In March, 1946, there were 24,581 unemployed ex-Service men out of a total 371,900 total unemployed in the country. In May 53,964 men and 3,658 women were unemployed, of whom 6,374 were ex-men officers and 173 ex-women officers. In October, 1948, the total register was 569,657 of whom 6,286 were ex-officers.

Mr. Austin (Stretford)

The hon. and gallant Gentleman keeps referring to ex-officers over 40. Will he explain the position?

Air-Commodore Harvey

The right hon. Gentleman has said it is not possible to split up the figures so one has to take a percentage of the figures available. On 20th October this year I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour asking him for further information. It was on this occasion that I was particularly disappointed with his reply. He said: I regret that statistics are not available. Persons who have served in His Majesty's Forces are not separately distinguished in the unemployment figures. After a supplementary he said: I do not agree that there is a number of men suffering hardship and poverty because they are ex-Service men. The fact is that when men register for employment at the present time we do not ask them ' Have you or have you not been in the Forces?' We treat them all exactly the same, as workers."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 731.] That is the point where I beg to differ with the right Gentleman. It is the first time he has ever given such a reply to a Question dealing with these ex-Service men. They cannot possibly be treated on the same basis as men who have held a job in industry. Many men were directed into industry during the war, and though it may not have been their line of work, neverthless they were using their hands and brains in civilian jobs. It has also to be remembered that many of them continued, after the war, to work in industry. I do not want to belittle their achievement. They played an important part in the war effort. The fighting Services could not have gone on to win the war without the tools and other equipment which these men provided.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge (Bedford)

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me that many of these men stayed behind against their wills. They would rather have joined up had they had the same opportunity.

Air-Commodore Harvey

That is exactly the point I am explaining. The effort in the factories was very important; because they were in these factories many men were not allowed to join the Fighting Services. I contend, however, that if a man has been in the Army he is at a real disadvantage compared with the man who stayed behind, whether against his will or not. It is fairly obvious, and generally agreed in the House, that this situation will get more difficult. Perhaps on the Clyde and in the north-east of England there will be some measure of unemployment, for example, in shipbuilding. There are already indications in certain parts of the textile industry that unemployment is rising. Last month there were 6,000 less at work than in the month previously, and I think that if we go into that era, even on a small scale, these men will be easily forgotten. It is comparatively easy to take care of them when we have got near full employment, but when we run into economic difficulties it will be more difficult to rectify the situation.

Mr. Daines (East Ham, North)

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman dealing with fit men or with men who are disabled?

Air-Commodore Harvey

I am dealing mainly with unemployed ex-Service men. There may be some who are receiving a small disability pension, but have to go to work to support themselves and their families.

I am the first to admit that the Government have done good work in the way of vocational training for young men in order to get them into jobs, but these older men have not had the same generous treatment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has instructed his appointments officers to do all they can to get these men employment but have corporations such as the Overseas Food Corporation gone out of their way to see how many of these men could fit into jobs overseas? We all know that the air corporations take on people, and that every few months they have a big redundancy list as a result of which many men taken on are out of work.

We have frequently discussed whether more men could have remained in the Fighting Services for a few more years, without a pension but on a gratuity basis. For instance, I ask the Minister of Labour to consider what he said in April, 1946— I am not quite sure whether I am on thin ice, but I think that consideration might be given to the possibility of retaining some of these ex-officers, between the ages of 45 and 55, without the 'ex-,' a little longer as Service officers and letting them go on for pension. I took advantage of the opportunity, when visiting a very famous military educational establishment, not so very long ago, to talk to some of the younger officers taking their staff course, about this idea, and—perhaps not surprisingly—they were rather reluctant to think that these old fellows were going to be in the way of their promotion. We have always to consider the other side of the question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 2978.] That is fair, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what was done and what can be done in that direction in the future.

I think the Government Departments and Government-sponsored boards are the worse offenders. I am not exonerating industry, which I will refer to later, but it is up to the Government-sponsored Departments to set an example. If they do that, the others can be dealt with if they do not come up to scratch.

Hundreds of jobs are offered daily—one sees them in the "Daily Telegraph" employment lists and in other newspapers—to men between 18 and 50 years of age, and they do not go through the appointments offices. If we are to have these well-run, fine buildings, which are costly establishments, let us make full use of them. The labour officers know that these jobs are not going through their own organisations, but they can do nothing about it. I am told by one of the men who are constantly looking for jobs that jobs go "under the counter." I am not making that accusation myself, but it may be that in some cases there is favouritism. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry out a thorough check to see that these jobs are handed out fairly, and not given to friends or friends of friends.

As an instance let me give the case of a retired naval officer about whom I have been in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman. A job was advertised for an assistant purchasing officer for the South-Eastern Electricity Board. It so happened that this officer had exactly the training required. He had been trained as a purchasing officer, and he found there was no age limit when he checked up to get further details. He was not even given an interview and the job was given to a man already in the industry. That seems to be what is happening all the time. We know there must be promotion—

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)

The job was given to the man by whom? By the Ministry or by the employer?

Air-Commodore Harvey

By the South-Eastern Electricity Board, which gave the job to a man they already employed. Although the job was advertised, it appears that the Board was only going through the formality of advertising. Similarly, young men are given clerical jobs at £6 7s. a week over the heads of older men. The older men are no longer looking for fat salaries. At the end of the war only a few of them were thinking in terms of £1,000 or £1,200 a year; today, they would be very glad to get £6 7s. a week. It would be a very good thing to put some of them into the clerical jobs and let younger men fill other posts.

Many men with pensions, who have served a long time with the Colours, get jobs in preference to men who do not have pensions. There is a good case for the man who has given, perhaps, only temporary service in either or both of the wars getting some preference against those who have pensions. Perhaps the Minister will say also what is happening in the Ordnance factories, where, we were told, staffs were being cut down. Are the men who are to be put off going out under the old policy of "Last in, first out"? If so, it seems particularly hard for them not to get some preferential treatment.

I understand that the National Joint Advisory Council to the Ministry of Labour have endorsed a proposal for arrangements for ex-Regular Service men and women to enter the nationalised industries at the appropriate age and with experience and ability. Why cannot this scheme apply to ex-Service men who have not been Regulars? If we are to have this admirable scheme, then let it be thrown open so that, in this case also, it is possible for the man without a pension to qualify for the job. I believe that inquiries have already begun with the Transport Commission, the Coal Board and the British Electricity Authority and that they have endorsed the scheme in principle. But why not let all ex-Service men come into it?

I am also told that during the last 12 months something like 2,000 men have registered with the British Legion to be found employment. I give the British Legion full credit for what they have done in finding jobs for 300 men over 40 years of age. They have said that in some industries there is a real demand for that type of man, where he has been given a trial. Much more could be done for men who have reached an age at which they can make decisions and do not necessarily demand a high salary.

We need to go much further into this problem which involves further economic difficulties. In the few months before the present Parliament finishes its life I should like to see the Government really tackle this problem. There are many things which could be done. A small commission could be appointed to study the problem. I know that the matter has already been studied, but it is now four and a half years since the end of the war. Could not a little more be done, through the medium of the B.B.C., Ministers, Members of Parliament and members of local authorities, to bring this problem to notice of industry, in order to try to give these men a helping hand?

In the development areas some very good factories have been put up, in many cases on reasonably good terms to the employer. I should have thought that where a factory is provided for an employer or industrialist on that basis, while not making any firm agreement, an arrangement could be arrived at by which he made every effort to try to employ a certain number of the ex-Service men whom it is difficult to place in other industries. This applies also to Government Departments. Are they really trying to place these men when jobs are available?

Memories are very short. We all know that after the First World War the men were often forgotten, and even now many of the men from the last war are already forgotten. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory, if it needs refreshing, and to see what can be done. If one of the last actions of the present Government is the tackling of this problem, their help will be appreciated by everybody interested in its solution.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Austin (Stretford)

No one would wish to quarrel at the restrained manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put forward this important matter but I doubt the wisdom of attempting to segregate any particular section of the community as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done in bringing the spotlight of public opinion on ex-Service men only. I have been concerned with this problem for a long time. I was interested in the correspondence which went on in the columns of a London newspaper a little while ago. That correspondence revealed a great deal of distress among unemployed people of middle age, but it did not refer only to ex-Service men or to people of one sex.

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, this problem has in part been dealt with by the Government. He paid tribute to what the Government have done in the training and rehabilitation of ex-Service men. The point which must arise is that what is happening to this small section of the community reveals a far wider problem. If there are only a few thousand middle-aged ex-Service men out of work, there must be many more thousands of middle-aged people who are not ex-Service men who are out of work and equally in a state of distress.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said earlier. I said that I recognised that there were two categories. I tried to explain that those who had spent perhaps five years of the first war and six or seven years of the second war—12 years in all—with the Colours and completely away from industry, were at a disadvantage compared with those who did not serve.

Mr. Austin

I subscribe entirely to that point of view. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman when he made that point. At the same time, I say that we must not close our eyes to the gravity of the problem which exists among other sections of the community. The point I wish to impress upon the Government is that when a man is middle-aged, he particularly needs economic security. When a man has been uprooted from the normal routine of his life, either through economic circumstances or through the convulsion of war, in middle-age he needs the bed-rock of security. He needs a job. He needs to know that he will not be left unemployed, on the morrow, not knowing where to turn.

That also applies to women. With the exception of a small section of talented women, those women in middle age who go out to work, fall into two categories. There is the woman of middle age who is a widow, who has the burden of supporting children and who, therefore, is compelled to go out to work. She is faced with the handicap of having younger women competing with her for a job. The second category is the single woman of middle age who has never known the blessing of married happiness, who has nobody to support her and who must go out to work. We ought not to overlook these women who are equally entitled to consideration. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not mind because I have extended the scope of the Debate.

Some time ago in my division I learned that a company responsible for passenger transport in Lancashire had decided not to employ men over 40 as bus conductors. Immediately I wrote to the company and was given an assurance that that was not part of their policy and that they were prepared to accept men over 40 provided that they were fit for the job. That incident indicates that there is a tendency throughout the country to employ younger and fitter men at the expense of the older men who are approaching middle age.

I would remind my right hon. Friend that here we are dealing with men and women who are prepared to accept not necessarily work of a manual character but administrative duties. There are jobs of a mental character, which have always required first-class physical qualities, and yet, when one looks at the recommendation which has been made in regard to mental qualities and ability in the Cohen Report on Company Law, we find the age limit given there is 70. If we take the age of 70 for a director in the board room of a company, why on earth should we regard it as impossible for a man of 50 to do administrative work of any character?

I can understand these prejudices and difficulties arising in the pre-war years, when there was a surplus of labour of all kinds and when employers were able very easily to make their choice and select whom they wanted for the jobs, but today, when we have full production and we want to enable the more active and useful members of the community to take part themselves in productive efforts, this is the time when we should fit into the administrative, clerical and welfare jobs those who are older.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave one example of where the Government's responsibilities lie, and I believe there is a tremendous responsibility resting on the Government to set an example to private industry on whom they should employ in certain categories of jobs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quite rightly referred to the published advertisement of a Government post, which I think provided an age limit in regard to the applicant—

Mr. Isaacs

A Government post?

Mr. Austin

Yes. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman can confirm that?

Air-Commodore Harvey

Yes, the South-Eastern Electricity Board.

Mr. Austin

If that is not exactly a Government post, perhaps we may qualify it by saying that it is a post of a quasi-Government character. I am sorry to see my right hon. Friend splitting straws of that character.

Mr. Isaacs

indicated dissent.

Mr. Austin

Perhaps he is not capable of splitting straws.

I have had correspondence from the Association of Supervisory Staffs, a trade union which deals with the managerial grade and of which I am a member, and, on the authority of this trade union and of the National Federation of Professional Workers, a body which is not unknown to my right hon. Friend, I have here a list of 15 quasi-Government posts which have been publicly advertised and which contain an age limit. It is here. I think, where the Government are wrong in laying down an age limit for jobs of an administrative clerical or welfare character.

The first of these advertisements refers to the post of an administrative assistant to a hospital management committee, and the ages thought desirable for a person to do that job are from 25 to 35. I just do not understand why. Let me take another example at random. An age limit of between 21 to 25, though people up to 28 would be considered, is stipulated for an assistant to a group manager in a gas undertaking. This seems fantastic. I can give the Minister chapter and verse and can trace the advertisements in question. There is another relating to a man, preferably not over 45, who is to be an education officer in Tanganyika. There may be some substance in the argument in regard to jobs abroad, where a man might have to encounter exceptional difficulties in tropical Africa or the Far East, for imposing a reasonable age limit, particularly where a job of an active character is envisaged. Where a man is fit enough and has capabilities, I do not think we can limit entrants into these jobs to an age of 45 years. If we return to the examples at home, I have here another case of an age limit of between 28 and 40 for a personnel assistant in the National Coal Board.

Where are we getting to as a result of this ludicrous kind of advertisement in the newspapers, which would prevent men in the region of 45 from applying for jobs of this character? Then there is the advertisement for a man up to the age of 30 as an administrative assistant in an East Midlands Gas Board, and yet another saying that applications will be accepted or considered from men between the ages of 30 and 45 for posts of senior accounting assistants at Hull for the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.

There is something radically wrong if in these days of stringency and economic difficulties, when every man who can be used ought to be used on production, we should be getting this type of advertisement which is prejudicing the prospects of talented men and penalising them simply because they are in the region of 50 years of age. I want to see the Government adopt the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, and undertake to make some sort of inquiry into what is going on both in private enterprise and in nationalised or quasi-State industries. If ever it was necessary for the Government to set an example to private enterprise, it is so in this sphere, and it is because of this that I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for raising this matter today.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe (Brighton)

I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) on this matter, because I think he has done a good service to the House in bringing it to the Minister's attention. As he said, the Minister has certainly not been entirely idle in this matter, and we fully recognise the attempts which have so far been made. However, I am bound to say that there does not seem to have been a sufficiently affirmative approach to this difficult problem.

I propose to limit myself to the subject raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) opened up a somewhat wider field. I do not criticise him for doing so, because we all take such opportunities as we can to make particular points in which we are interested. The subject raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was the case of ex-Service men over 40 years of age. The hon. Member for Stretford dealt at some length with non-ex-Service women, but I want to come back to the original subject. It is obviously one which requires urgent attention because, as was pointed out, in the last year or so the figures show that the number of unemployed ex-Service men has roughly doubled, although it is not possible to segregate the age groups into which they fall. Therefore, there is an increasing urgency in this matter.

I was surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had said on a previous occasion, in answer to a Question, that when matters of employment were being considered no distinction was made between the ex-Service man and the non-ex-Service man. I must say that I think that is the wrong approach to this question, because I believe that the ex-Service man is deserving of special consideration for two reasons, firstly, that he has rendered special service which deserves reward, and secondly, because he has suffered the disadvantage of not being particularly trained in a special trade. That puts him at a disadvantage compared with the man who has been adequately trained in a particular trade, and, therefore, he ought to have, I suggest, some special consideration.

The reason this matter becomes particularly urgent now is that it is apparent that there is a grave risk of increasing unemployment in the not-too-distant future. I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in expressing the hope that that will not happen, but all the indications are that there is at least a threat of it. Indeed, one need go no further than the admissions of Ministers themselves to find justification for saying that. The Lord President of the Council has pointed out that without Marshall Aid there would be 1½ million unemployed, and Marshall Aid comes to an end in 1952. Therefore, we ought to look ahead and see how such threatened unemployment will affect this particular section of the community.

When unemployment comes they are the first to be hit both for the reason which I have already pointed out, that they are not trained or not as trained as other men are, and also because they are getting to an age when it is difficult for them to compete with younger men. I contend that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that he makes no differentiation in favour of these men, and I ask him to reconsider the matter particularly in the light of unemployment which is coming. He ought to reverse that policy and put into operation a policy which gives special consideration to these men for the reason that they are placed at a disadvantage by reason of training and age.

Although, as has been said, the right hon. Gentleman has not by any means let this matter slide, I feel that he has merely treated it as part of the whole problem of. employment. What I would like him to do is to reconsider that point and put it into a special category of its own. If it is merely treated as part of the general policy of employment, these are the men who, when unemployment comes, will be the first to suffer. They will suffer unless they are given special consideration. For those reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be warned in time of the menace which hangs over these men, and to work out some special scheme which will give them particular treatment so that their particular problem can have his attention.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Daines (East Ham, North)

The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) complained that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) went a bit wide of the subject. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Maccles- field (Air-Commodore Harvey) in some of the approaches that he has made—

Mr. Marlowe

If I may interrupt, I specifically said that I did not complain of what the hon. Gentleman had said. I said that we all take such opportunities as we can of riding our own particular horses.

Mr. Daines

I thought the hon. and learned Member said that he proposed to return to the original subject, and that in that sense there was an implied criticism.

I have considerable sympathy with part of the objective of the hon. ana gallant Member for Macclesfield. What rather disturbed me was the underlying theme of the whole of his speech. I could not help thinking, particularly when the hon. and learned Member for Brighton indulged in a political side-kick, to which I do not object, that there is a great difference between the treatment of the ex-Service men after the recent war and the terrible fate of the ex-Service men after the First World War. I do not wish to be thought unduly political when I say that I take the view that that is due to the advent of a Labour Government.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the gratuities after the 1939–45 war were nothing like as good as the gratuities after the First World War.

Mr. Daines

We are not dealing with gratuities. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will let me keep to the subject and deal solely with the question of employment. I agree that in the case of the long-service man who is cut off by his Service experience from civilian life, the community, the State and the Government have a special responsibility to shoulder. I remember two very vivid instances, one of them recently, when one of the long-service men who took part in a recent action was being interviewed over the radio, and he was asked what he was going to do when he left the Service. The interviewer thought it was a wonderful thing. It was not a wonderful thing to the man who was being interviewed, and I sensed a note of fear. I have met, as has the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, men who have been so long in Service life that they have become almost fearful of going into civilian life because it is so foreign to their environment and experience. That feeling is entirely a result of their environment. I quite accept that we have a special responsibility to these men and that everything should be done to fit and re-adapt them to civilian life, whether they were officers or whether they served in the ranks.

When we come to the question of disabled men, however, I cannot go all the way with the hon. and gallant Member. It seems to me that after the recent war, perhaps even more than after the First World War, it has been much harder to give that sort of special qualification to which the hon. and learned Member for Brighton seemed to refer. I cannot see that we have any greater responsibility, shall I say, for a man who was in uniform and who suffered in a bomb incident than for a civilian who suffered in a bomb incident; if they were both equally disabled, then the community has an equal responsibility. The last war was, in practice, a total war, and if we draw up the definition of the man or woman who put on uniform, where shall we draw the line, even within such a definition? The hon. and gallant Member knows as well as I do—and I had Service experience, as he had—that there were many jobs in the Services which were just as much civilianised as some civilian jobs. I cannot see that the mere fact that a person wore a uniform should give, in terms of disablement or of experience, any special claim to special treatment.

When we turn to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford I am much more in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield. I do not want to weary the House with statistics, but I must say—and I am not approaching this from the unemployment angle, but from the angle of full employment—that I become very alarmed when I go into some of the large post offices of this country and notice the enormous change which has taken place during the last three years. Three years ago it seemed to me—and I make this as a general observation—that the personnel on the counters were mainly women and middle-aged men, but when we go into post offices today we find fine, stalwart, husky men, virile young chaps of about 20 to 30, in place of the women who did the job previously. It may be that there is a special revenue sales angle which requires us to have these husky young fellows, like film stars, behind the counter, but in terms of a realistic view of the economy of the nation it is appalling.

I have a very strong suspicion of what is behind this, and it is a point which affects the whole personnel of management of many of the branches of the Civil Service, of Government and quasi-Gov-ernment institutions. From the angle of management they want the fittest men, they want the men who will be the least trouble and the least likely to be away from work. I recognise, as I think we must all recognise, that if we have the older men, if we have a higher degree of disabled men, then we are bound to have more labour difficulties than with the fitter types. My experience teaches me that among many Government and quasi-Government Departments there is no realisation of the manpower situation which the country faces.

I hope that in his reply the Minister will call our attention to the great work he has done in rehabilitation, and I recognise that with him; but I must say, quite frankly, that my observation teaches me that many of our large Government Departments are not playing the game, and are certainly not trying to fit in these men as they should.

I have been hoping that at some time in the life of this Parliament we could have a day on which we could deal, not only with the specific aspect which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put before us today, but with the whole question of the age structure of our population, and its relation to industry and social life. I take this opportunity of saying, quite frankly, that I believe one of the great mistakes that has been made in the life of this Parliament has been to accept the pre-war concepts of a return of unemployment and the pre-war estimate of the longevity of our people as a basis of our social services because both those things are quite inapplicable today. I do not believe that our country can go on indefinitely as it is, with a retirement age at 60 or 65, throwing middle-aged people aside in all branches of industry, because that places an intolerable burden on the people actually engaged in production. I sincerely hope that the Government will do us the honour of reading this Debate, and that perhaps during the lifetime of this Parliament we shall be given an opportunity of getting to grips with the problem.

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for raising this subject today. After all, all of us on both sides of the House must soon go to our masters and seek renewal of our contracts, and looking at the ages of those in the House, and of those who are not here at the moment, we can see that this is a problem with which some of us may be personally concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) may stroke his locks, but I would remind him of the old saying that you can have hair or brains. Personally, I, who am not now so well blessed with locks as my hon. Friend, have never been dissatisfied.

3.52 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

This Debate has been most interesting, and even if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to reply to all the points that have been made today I hope he will at least consider them. I think that what the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), said about the Post Office needs qualification, because it is probably true to say—and perhaps the Minister can bear me out—that a post office tends to employ the labour which is not in the greatest demand by industries in the district of that particular post office. Certainly, in rural areas there is more female labour in the post offices than in the big cities, where there are many female operatives in the factories. Everything that has been said this afternoon reinforces me in a belief which I have long held, that one day we shall have to establish a system under which those who serve the State, in any capacity, are treated the same at the end of their time in their main job. I believe that one day we shall have a system not unlike the French system, under which ex-Service men go into a branch of the Civil Service, the Customs, and so on, but perhaps that is a long way off.

I hope the Minister will be able to give some indication of the present state of affairs in the Ministries. I have been looking at the figures after the 1914–18 war, and I find that, in 1924, 97 per cent.

of the male staff of the Ministry of Pensions were ex-Service men. I do not know whether it is as high as that today. I rather doubt it. In the past many Ministries have been proud to print on their official notepaper a note to the effect that they employed ex-Service men. I hope they are all seriously considering whether they have now got their full proportion, because I feel they have not.

I wonder whether the Minister has figures showing how many of those who are now unemployed went back, after their military service, to a civilian job and have since been dismissed from it. I am afraid we must face the fact that some men, especially the older men, who were perfectly satisfactory in civilian employment before the war, came back from the Forces into that same employment only to find that they no longer fitted. These cases are just as tragic as any of the others. It is not always that these men feel that they are unfitted for the job which they have been given immediately after the war. I hope the Minister, if he cannot give us accurate statistics, at least will give us his Ministry's estimate of the number of these men. The figure I have in mind is somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000. I think we should seriously consider whether there is not some form of employment which has not yet been considered in detail and for which they would be fitted.

I notice that when the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley was being planned, there was a Question asked in this House, in 1922, as to whether special priority was being given to ex-Service men being taken on for the Exhibition. I think the Exhibition employed about 20,000 men, during the time it was in being and while it was being built. Has the Minister considered, in connection with the Exhibition of 1951, the possibility of giving ex-Service men employment there? There must be a certain amount of general labour which could absorb a good many ex-Service men in the work now being undertaken, and more as the opening of the Exhibition gets nearer. I hope that matter will not be overlooked.

Lastly, may I say a word on the question of whether a man is entitled to greater consideration because he is an ex-Service man? I should have thought that the criterion was, first, how much he was able to keep in touch with the job which he had come from and would be going back to, and, second, how much he had suffered by being compulsorily taken from his home. One of the biggest debts which this country owes is to men who had to go abroad, and the fact that there was enforced separation from their families through no fault of their own. I do not pretend that those men, who did their job in industry during the war, do not deserve their country's thanks quite as much, but those who were separated from their families feel that they have earned some extra consideration from their country. I hope the Minister will confirm that attitude, because I am very disturbed by the answer which he gave to my hon. and gallant Friend for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), and I hope he will take a rather more open-minded attitude about it today.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)

I am glad to have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, through your courtesy in calling me today, of taking part in this Debate. I would like first to point out that, although the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), for whom I have a great admiration, said that this Parliament was dead, I think that this Debate has shown that this Parliament is not dead.

We have been given a very constructive speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) when he said that speech represented on the whole, together with the speeches made from these benches, the sense of the House. I think that we in this House feel very deeply about the way that ex-Service men are treated today. I have the greatest possible admiration for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has dealt with this subject since the end of the war, and I am quite sure that feeling is echoed throughout this House. When we have come to my right hon. Friend, on behalf of ex-Service men in trouble, we have certainly had a very fair hearing. I wish to deal today with a constituency matter.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put

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

Mr. Blackburn

While agreeing entirely with what has been said, and supporting the plea that on the whole the policy of the Government should be for young ex-Service men to be put in productive industry and older ex-Service men in administrative and clerical jobs. I wish to deal primarily with a matter that is entirely a constituency matter, relating to R.A.F. personnel. In doing so. I hope I shall not be considered lacking in the usual courtesy one gives to the House if I quote the poem, which, after all, was the best known of all war poems, written by John Pudney: Do not despair For Johnnie head in air He sleeps as sound As Johnnie underground Fetch out no shroud For Johnnie in the cloud But keep your tears For him in after years Better by far For Johnnie the bright star To keep your head And see his children fed. We remember what the Services did in the war, and we now want to see, not only that those who died have their children properly looked after, but that those ex-Service men who live have every opportunity of gainful occupation.

I am pleading today on a subject in regard to which I find myself in some difficulty, because, in a way, I disagree with the case I am putting forward. I am pleading on behalf of the Patrick Aviation Company, Limited, which is in my constituency and employs 14 ex-Service men. I understand that two of these men were long-range bomber pilots, one of them a Coastal Command pilot and another a fighter pilot. Since the end of the war, as the House knows, the Ministry of Civil Aviation announced their intention of nationalising civil aviation, which Parliament has now put into effect, and certain services have since been allowed by the Ministry to keep going.

The Ministry have allowed the service run by the Patrick Aviation Company between Birmingham and Jersey, which has been run exceptionally carefully from every point of view—I think it has a 99.5 per cent. accident-free record. This service has been carried on in winter and summer, and the fact that it has been run both in the winter and the summer has the approval of its sponsors, the Birmingham Corporation. At the moment, the company is under notice that it cannot run this service during the summer, although it is now carrying on the service during this winter. If the company is not allowed to carry on the service during the summer, I am informed by the managing director that it has already put up so much money that it will make a loss, assuming that it closes down next year. If the company is not allowed to carry on during the summer, it will not be worth carrying on during the winter, with the result that 14 ex-Service men in my constituency are to be turned out of a job by the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Marlowe

Will the hon. Member tell us whether he voted for the nationalisation of civil aviation?

Mr. Blackburn

I am delighted to tell the hon. and learned Member that I voted for nationalisation, and that I should vote for it again. I hope that my position is perfectly clear. I consider that it is quite impossible to carry on civil aviation on behalf of this country and maintain our imperial communications without nationalisation. The Government's case has been made out time and again, and I hardly think the hon. and learned Member should reproach me, at a time when I am trying to fight for my constituents, by bringing in a party point of that kind.

I am not thinking about the capital invested in this company by its directors, but about the livelihood of the 14 ex-Service men who are now employed in it and are living in my constituency. This company is going to be closed unless it can get some form of service, because nobody can expect the directors to carry on the service at a loss. It can only make a profit during the summer, but when the summer comes, the company will not be allowed to operate, because the Ministry of Civil Aviation will have taken it over before that.

Speaking on behalf of the ex-Service men who are threatened with unemploy- ment, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whether he can put forward some kind of case with the Ministry of Civil Aviation in order to see that their employment is secured over a period of 12 months. I do not wish to be unfair about this matter, because it is a matter on which one can easily be unfair. I think it is quite wrong—and in this respect I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Brighton for his intervention—that the Government should have to carry on aviation services which are unprofitable and not be able to take over aviation services that are.

I know that I have been asked time and time again by people prompted by the Tory Central Office, "Is it not a fact that all nationalised industries are not working at profit?' and such drivel as that which has been inspired by the Tory party. The Minister of Civil Aviation is entitled to say, "If something is working at a profit I, who have to make a loss on my Imperial communications in the interests of the British Commonwealth and Empire, must be entitled to take over that part of civil aviation which is working at a profit." I entirely agree with that case.

This is really a matter for my right hon. Friend, and I ask him to think of the 14 ex-Service men and their families in my constituency. On their behalf I ask him to intervene with the Minister of Civil Aviation, who I may say, has been quite reasonable about the matter, and has not yet made up his mind. I am asking my right hon. Friend if he cannot intervene with his right hon. Friend on behalf of these men to see whether some compromise cannot be worked out which will safeguard their jobs. I am grateful for having been given the opportunity to speak in this Debate this afternoon, which shows that this Parliament is not dead, and that it can still do a good deal for the benefit of our constituents.

4.7 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)

We have had an interesting discussion, and I was particularly impressed by the case made out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), who opened the Debate. If I may clear away one or two questions which have arisen since he sat down, I will return towards the end of my reply to the main points which he put. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) referred to the employment of staff in a number of what he called "quasi-Government posts." Many of those he referred to, such as the hospital committees, gas undertakings, the Docks Executive and the Coal Board are all completely independent in the day to day running of their services, and I have no authority to give any instructions or directions to them.

I should like to tell my hon. Friend at once that I personally very much regret that any of these Departments should fix an age limit for posts of any kind. I have continuously appealed to employers throughout the country, with some success, not to debar a man because he is a certain age. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford made use of the phrase that these people "Have need of economic security," I have pointed out to employers that because of that need the men who have reached that age are likely to be very good servants, for, having found this security, they are likely to study and stick to their jobs.

Some of the Government Departments, who were in the habit of fixing an age limit, have, because of our representations, agreed to cut it down considerably and so give greater scope for employment in a much wider sphere. I still hold the view that it is wrong that men, whether ex-Service men or otherwise, who have reached the age of 45 or 50 should be considered as unsuitable even to apply for a job. I hope that in State, municipal or private industry we can reach the point where that can be broken down.

Mr. Austin

rose —

Mr. Isaacs

I have not much time. There is one other point in that connection which has a peculiar effect. Many age limits are fixed because the firms in question have pension schemes and do not want to take on a man over that age because of its effect on the scheme. It is awkward that a firm which has done something to help those in its employ should, by so doing, deprive itself from taking on a man who cannot qualify for the scheme. However, we are constantly in touch with groups of employers on these matters and, when we get down to brass tacks, we find them to be genuinely sympathetic. We shall continue our efforts in that respect.

The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) asked what was the extent of the problem. One would think from this Debate that there were hoards of ex-Service men unemployed. It must be remembered that considerably over five million of the men and women who went into the Forces were demobilised after the war ended. This does not take into consideration those demobilised or discharged during the war, and although five million came out of the Forces there were only 300,000 unemployed altogether in October of this year, of whom about half were ex-Service men. If we assume that they represent a full half, there are 150,000 ex-Service men unemployed out of that total.

The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) referred to Exhibition employment. I can assure the House that whatever my Ministry can do to "sell" our unemployed persons to any job we will do it, but we cannot say to the Exhibition authorities, "You must take ex-Service men." However, we will go to them and say, "We have these ex-Service men, will you take them?" The hon. and gallant Member went back to 1924 in stating that the Ministry of Pensions had about 95 per cent. I am satisfied that in most sections of the Government service, where ex-Service men without previous trades can be employed, they are employed. I feel quite sure that every messenger and attendant in every office of the Ministry of Labour is an ex-Service man—anyway, a vast proportion of them are—and I can say the same for the other Departments.

The House will also bear in mind the great work done in rehabilitating men who have been patched up and made whole again. If any Minister had a pet job in his Department I have it in this work of looking after our disabled people. I was interested to see that in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Pensions, now in the Vote Office, a tribute is paid to my Department in association with their own in the resettlement of those who have been disabled.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield said that we seem to have lost sympathy with ex-Service men and I hope to be able to show that that is not true. The hon. and gallant Member also quoted from a speech made during the time of the Coalition Government, when either the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) or the present Foreign Secretary said that ex-Service men would not be placed at a disadvantage. I can assure him that that is absolutely the position now, and that they are not placed at a disadvantage. In case it may be argued that I am merely saying that they are placed on terms of equality with others, I can show that they have more than that.

The hon. and gallant Member asked whether Government Departments were using our appointments offices. Yes, they are. Two years ago we were able to get them to use our Appointments Department and the department dealing with the scientific register. In that way many of the Government Departments make applications to us. We hope to secure from all the big nationalised boards the same recognition of the use of that Department.

Another matter to which the hon. and gallant Member referred seemed coincidental with my own experience, although I thought he would draw a different conclusion. I have several times spoken on problems of manpower to officers of various ranks in one of our big staff colleges. On one occasion when the lecture was over I said that I would like the Services to keep more of their officers over 40 or 45 for another few years, to give them a better chance. There was nearly a riot, and somebody said, "They would stand in the way of our promotion." That is exactly what the hon. and gallant Member himself has said.

That is one of the problems generally in industry. In fact, some employers, when asked not to discharge people on reaching the age of 65 and to compel them to go on pension but to retain them in employment, have explained that if they were to retain these people there would be blocks to promotion all along the line. Many of these employers are trying to find some kind of semi-responsible jobs in which such men can use their experience without preventing younger men from stepping up.

Another very interesting point, to which reference has been made, is that of advertising. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield quoted the case of a naval officer who went to the Electricity Board. I have not particulars of that case, but it frequently happens, particularly with municipal authorities, that they have to advertise when they are about to fill a certain post. At the same time, they have a man in their office who is suitable for promotion even if they did not advertise. They nevertheless complete the procedure of advertising, with the result that very often someone who imagines he is very well fitted for the appointment suffers bitter disappointment.

In spite of all our publicity and Debates in this House it is not yet common knowledge among employers that we have an Appointments Department. It is partly for this reason that many employers resort to Press advertising. Frequently, my Department contacts these employers and offers them assistance in finding suitable applicants. If the employer has already received replies to his advertisement he may not contact us, but if he does come to us we may be able to offer him a choice of staff.

It must, of course, be borne in mind that we can only submit applicants to employers. We cannot make an employer accept the applicant, however suitable we think he may be. Sometimes we might even be tempted to feel that, "If this man is not good enough for the job, we will not try any further," but we do, of course, continue trying until the employer is satisfied. Some men, especially the ex-Regular officer, are difficult to place in employment. The difficulty is not the fault of the man, but is because of his isolation from any kind of industry. Sometimes we submit five, six or seven of these men without their being accepted for a particular job.

Nowadays, instead of having hordes of men queueing up for work in the offices of the Ministry, there is generally a host of jobs waiting for the men. We have, as a result, fewer people with whom to deal; instead of the applicant having to stand at the counter we have, in some places, set aside separate rooms where he is asked to sit down instead of having to stand up. That makes a difference. The man will be interviewed, questioned and examined. We will gather all the information we can from that man. A man who has been following a trade for which there is no appointment vacant may have had a hobby. When the man is questioned it may be found that his hobby makes it possible for him to be fitted into some other trade more easily.

We do not leave the matter there. We have placing officers who make contact with the employers. I assure the House that if a man is 45, 50 or 55, it is not merely a question of putting his name on a list and waiting for somebody to ask for him. Our placing officers get into contact with employers in the area and advocate the case of that man. They will say, "We have a man here. You said that you wanted one under a certain age, but this man is a few years older than that. Have a look at him. Send for him." I have been surprised at the success achieved not only in this respect but among employers who have seen men who did not look as if they were worth anything because of the rough times they have had. Employers have found that men wanting a job will fit in and they employ them. I say this just to show that this is not merely a routine matter.

The Minister gets all the praise and very often he gets all the blame, and it serves him right, but I must say that I am full of admiration for the personal devotion shown by our staffs all over the country in their efforts to place the men who have come before them. I should like to explain what happens. When an unemployed person goes to the employment exchange for the first time, to register, we record whether he is an ex-Service man or not. When a man goes along afterwards in the ordinary way and says that he is out of work and has come for a job, we do not ask, "Are you an ex-Service man?" We have a record of every one. Until the end of 1948 we kept a constant record of the employment or otherwise of the various groups, but we dropped that because we did not think that it served any useful purpose in view of the rapid diminution of the number of employed. That record is necessary for two reasons. We want to know who has been in the Services because there are certain Government Departments like the Post Office who give all classes of certain jobs to ex-Service men. There are other Government Departments who reserve a variety of jobs for ex-Service men and there are certain grades of the Civil Service which are restricted to ex-Service men, mainly ex-Regulars. I will come to the very difficult question of ex-Regulars in a moment.

We are attempting to persuade local authorities and industry generally to adopt a policy designed to absorb ex-Regulars at levels appropriate to their age, experience and ability. There is no real problem in handling the ex-Service man who is not an ex-Regular because, in the main, those people were in some sort, of work before they entered the Service, and as it is four years since they left the Service most of them have settled down. I want to emphasise, the fact that the employment exchange official does not himself exercise any preference on behalf of ex-Service men. I submit that that must be the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) gave some indication of what is happening. If there is a job available and two men apply, both of whom are fit for the job, the employment exchange manager cannot say, "Have you been in the Service? If so the job is yours", or "If you have not been in the Service the job is not for you." Let us assume that both men have been in the Service. In that case we must decide what we mean by the word "service." I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) who said that those who had made a sacrifice of home life by going abroad should be considered. Is the exhange manager to decide that one man should get the job because he has been abroad and that the other one should not get it because he has not been abroad?

What is meant by the word "service "? Does it mean the man who joined the Forces at the beginning of the war and ststyed until the end? Does it mean that the men who went away and served six months get the job against those who never went away? When we talk about sacrifices, I quite understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who himself served in the war, has a deep feeling of sympathy and comradeship with those who served, but I and others also have a deep feeling of comradeship with those who stood alongside us in the streets of London and other towns when the bombs were dropping, who went on with their work during the day, and, at the end of it, turned out as air raid wardens or members of the Home Guard. I mention that to show the great difficulty about it, but I say that we will do what we can to help, but are we to say "Here is a job, a postman's job; if you are not an ex-Service man you cannot have it"?

Air-Commodore Harvey

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the problem of the over-40's who have not been Regulars did not really exist. Surely, the Debate has been concerned with those who have not been Regulars?

Mr. Isaacs

I will cut out any further trimmings and give the real facts. The problem of the ex-Regular is not the problem which is worrying us, as I will show by the figures. Let us take the work of our Appointments Department, which deals with jobs of the managerial, administrative and executive character. The majority of these are ex-officers, and we have separate statistics between these men and ex-Regulars, and these are the facts. At October, 1948, there were 7,501 unemployed men of all ranks on the appointments register; in October, 1949, the corresponding number was 5,348, a reduction of 2,153, apart from all those we filled up in between. Of these totals, ex-officers in October, 1948, numbered 5,432, and in October, 1949, 3,664, a reduction of 1,768. In that period of 12 months, we have filled vacancies by ex-Service men to the number of 7,000, of whom 3,731 were ex-officers. Since VE day, 31,400 men of all ranks were placed by the appointments offices in the managerial, administrative and executive posts. If anybody likes to take that figure and compare it with the cost, he will find what a tremendous amount of good work has been done by these offices in securing appointments for these men.

With regard to the ex-Regular officers, the really difficult problem is that of the ex-Regular officer who leaves the Forces at the age of 45 or 50, and this problem of the ex-Regular of middle age is really part of the larger problem of the older workers in industry, except with the difference that he has had no training for the job which he has in view on returning to civil life. In spite of the difficulties, the appointment offices have been able to place 642 ex-Regular officers in employment in the last 12 months, in addition to 207 who have been placed through the exchanges, which figure is included in the other figures which I have already given.

I am bound to say that there is no complacency on the part of the Ministry and no lack of sympathy with these men. We are doing all we can to overcome this difficulty, particularly the problem of the over 40's. Careful note will be taken of what has been said this afternoon and I can promise that anything which has been suggested which might help us in this matter will be followed up.

Mr. Blackburn

In view of the offer by my right hon. Friend to do what he can to help, will he mind saying that he will try to help the 14 ex-Service men I mentioned to him, and will he see if anything can be done to ensure that they remain in employment?

Mr. Isaacs

I cannot say what I will do about their remaining in employment, but we will certainly do what we can to help them.

Mr. Austin

Will my right hon. Friend also look into the matter of newspaper advertisements which indicate a preference for younger men, and try to make some more satisfactory arrangements?

Mr. Isaacs

I cannot interfere with that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Four o'Clock.