HC Deb 12 April 1951 vol 486 cc1323-32

10.20 p.m.

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

Mr. Hollis (Devizes)

I wish to raise a matter of some national importance. I wish to raise it in as moderate a fashion as I can, and I very greatly hope that as the result of the short debate we shall have tonight we shall be able to advance a step towards the solution of the problem. Hon. Members who have interested themselves in this topic are broadly acquainted with the history of the problem. A few days before the war broke out the members of the relevant trade unions, like the members of all other trade unions in the country, were most anxious to make the greatest contribution that they could to the national war effort. That being so, they agreed for the period of the emergency to relax some of their previous customs.

An agreement was drawn up between the Air Ministry and the relevant trade unions, particularly that between the Air Ministry and A.E.U., in which it was said that where it could be shown that skilled men were not available, and production was prejudiced, semi-skilled labour might be utilised for the purpose of working with skilled men or under their direction for the performance of such duties as to supplement the work of the skilled men. It was agreed that when skilled labour became available restoration to the pre-arrangement practice should be made. It was a perfectly proper agreement of which I have not a word of criticism to make, except to some extent of the English in which it is phrased, which reminds me of Lewis Carroll translated into Cherokee.

The Air Ministry began paying its merit pay to those who had earned it quite irrespective of whether or not they had come from Government training establishments. In 1943 another agreement was made, called the Merit Pay Agreement, in which there emerged a new distinction. In the original Relaxation of Customs Agreement labour was divided into semiskilled and skilled labour, but in the new agreement there was a new distinction, a division of people into tradesmen of trainee origin and tradesmen eligible to be permanent members of the A.E.U. or E.T.U. Up to 1943 people of trainee origin had received their merit pay if they had shown merit just the same as anybody else. It was only in 1943 that they were told by the Air Ministry that if they had received the money they had done so under a misapprehension and they were not entitled to the larger degree of merit payments; nor have tradesmen of trainee origin as such ever been entitled to that from that day to this. It is from the confusion over the two different distinctions between labour that all the troubles of this problem arise.

The ridiculous situation has been brought to my notice of two men who joined the R.A.F. together in 1942, served and trained together, became Group I tradesmen at the same time in 1944, and were demobilisd in 1946. One went directly to work as a fitter in a maintenance unit, and, therefore, under this agreement he is for all time a dilutee. His friend went to work for Skyways and then returned as a fitter. He did not become a dilutee, but was classed as permanently basic. As a result of that there are a large number of anomalies, and the words "skilled" and "semiskilled" have become largely terms of art rather than terms of reality; that is to say, in many cases the people who are termed skilled are obviously in no kind of way more skilled than the people who are called non-skilled. There are a number of instances in my constituency where dilutees have to spend their lives training people who then become at once skilled workmen and go over the heads of their trainers whereas their trainers can never rise to be "skilled workmen."

I have a large dossier of people who have brought their grievances to my notice. I shall quote one instance which will be sufficient to prove to the House the great confusion of definition into which the situation has now fallen.

In 1946 there was some movement of labour from Aldergrove in Northern Ireland as a result of which 119 dilutees were moved away from Aldergrove and 217 basic men were sent to take their places. A Question was asked in the House, and the hon. Member who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Air and is today the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replied: The substitution of newly appointed skilled craftsmen, as and when they have become available, for dilutees trained and experienced on specialist craft work at No. 23 Maintenance Unit during the war years has temporarily lowered the standards of efficiency and production at the unit. But I see no reason to doubt that the higher standards will be regained when the skilled craftsmen have had the necessary practical experience on the type of work required of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 195 and 196.] That is the most Gilbertian answer that can ever have been given in the House. What does it amount to, in simple language? It amounts to this: that the untrained men produce more than the trained men, but when the trained men have had some training there is good reason to hope that they will produce as much as the untrained men. No one can pretend that that is a sensible state of affairs.

I do not want to delay the House on that because it is unnecessary to do so. Whatever may have been done right or wrong in detail in what was done five years ago, the reason why we drifted into this mess was that there was then a general belief that at the end of the war there would be a period of dis-armament, of relaxation of work in the Air Ministry maintenance units and therefore, naturally enough, the great problem that people were reasonably worried about was the threat of redundancy.

Unfortunately, from the national point of view as we all know, things have not turned out like that. Now the problem in these units, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree, is not the problem of redundancy but the problem that is vitally necessary if the rearmament programme of the Government is to be carried through—that rapid expansion should take place in those units, that more labour should be discovered, that more dilutees should be brought in. It is idle to waste time arguing whether the problems of redundancy were or were not properly faced in those areas in the past. On the contrary, if there be any danger whatever of unemployment in those units today, that unemployment is far more likely to come through an insufficiency of labour than from redundancy, and the great problem is how to get labour into those units.

That being so, this is a heaven sent moment for right hon. and learned Gentlemen and the House to tackle the problem of confusion of definition which has to be tackled sooner or later if we are to get that proper spirit of friendship and co-operation throughout the Air Ministry units which it is most vitally necessary, in the interests of the nation at large, in the interests of the basic men, and in the interests of the dilutees, to obtain.

I need not delay in labouring a point that must be obvious to all hon. Members but to bring it out quite clearly perhaps I might give the House two interesting quotations from hon. Members opposite when the House was debating the Restoration of Pre-war Trade Practices Bill on 10th November last year. In the first place, the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) made an interesting contribution when he said: I believe that entry to all industries should be free to all men; that provided they can do the job and have got the capacity they should be able to rise in their industry…I strongly hold that it is the function of the state so to clear the ring that every individual can exercise his potential to the full without restriction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1297.] I cannot agree with anything more than I agree with those words. Then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in winding up the debate, used extremely wise words, if I may say so. He admitted, as I have been saying now, that far from wishing to get rid of dilutee labour, on the contrary the country would vitally need much labour in the coming years, as re-armament had to be carried through. He said: My right hon. Friend has a big problem in trying further to stretch the manpower of the country, starting, as we do, from a basis of full employment. We must endeavour to make even better use of the existing manpower than we do at the moment. That is a job which both sides of industry must discuss in a co-operative manner, just as they discussed in 1940 and 1941 the bringing into being of the 1942 Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1318.] There again I find myself in complete agreement with those words. It is in that spirit that I do wish to approach this problem, and to make a very strong appeal indeed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We are all very sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is ill at present and is not able, therefore, to be in the House. I hope that he will be back soon. I make a very strong appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It cannot be denied that there is a problem. I myself put two Questions about the working of the merit system on 18th September and 18th October last year. The first was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary and the second by the right hon. Gentleman. Both answers were to the effect that preliminary talks were going on, but that they were not in a position to give a report. I hope that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to tell us more this evening he will tell us how these talks have progressed.

If it happens that they have gone much further forward than any of us know and he is able to announce some complete solution of this most difficult problem we shall be most interested to hear such a solution. But, quite frankly, I shall be surprised if he can give such a complete answer as that, and all that I am expecting, and all I appeal to him to do this evening is, in the first place, to give an assurance to the basic men in these units that they need not be worried about any problem of redundancy in the immediate future, and that the whole difficulty is quite opposite in its nature, that we are in danger of an insufficiency of labour. On the strength of this assurance I would also ask him to make to the country at large, and to the dilutees, the promise that there will be a thorough and impartial investigation into the whole of this difficult problem to discover what injustices and what anomalies there are, and how they can be remedied.

It may be that some hon. Members opposite may say that the Air Ministry units cannot be treated in isolation from some other problems. I do not suggest that that is not a fair point. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to widen the scope of the investigation, all well and good. But I earnestly appeal to him to make tonight a constructive contribution to the solution of this problem. I think that any of us who have come across it know that there is grave danger that if it is not tackled, it will introduce into the Air Ministry maintenance units a spirit which no one would desire. The matter will have to be tackled sooner or later and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to make a statement, I hope he will do so now.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hale (Rochdale)

I was very pleased when the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) admitted that many problems were involved in this matter. First of all, we ought to understand that this debate would not be taking place had it not been for the fact that the unions agreed to dilution. If the unions had not been big enough at the time of this country's trouble to realise the demands that were to be made on the country's engineering industry, and had refused to have various trades diluted, we would not have been discussing this matter here tonight. In fact, it is more than probable that the British Parliament would not have been in existence.

All hon. Members of the House have received a circular from an organisation titling itself "The Air Ministry Dilutees National Committee." It is rather significant that the first claim this association makes is that its members are illegally designated as dilutees. I do not think that anyone is familiar with what dilution means in the engineering industry. I agree that many of those termed dilutees are, in reality, craftsmen. I come from an engineering industry, and have worked alongside men who were known as dilutees because they were being employed in a branch of the industry which was not their own. We had blacksmiths registered as dilutee fitters, and this sort of thing went on through a number of trades.

The hon. Member for Devizes stated that when a craftsman comes along the dilutee shows him the job. Let us understand what is a craftsman in the engineering industry. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would say if someone who had a knowledge of first-aid called himself a doctor. If an engineer is a craftsman he is capable of going over a range of jobs in his trade.

Mr. Hollis

A number of people have been told, after a number of years, that they have been dilutees for years. AH I am asking is for an examination of the anomalies.

Mr. Hale

Am I to understand Chat these workmen have been working in the Air Ministry workshops without knowing what their status was?

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

Yes, that is right.

Mr. Hollis

I have here a letter from a man which I received only this morning. He had been working from 1940 to 1948, and was suddenly informed that he was a dilutee. I am saying that there are a number of anomalies and I am asking for these to be investigated.

Mr. Hale

That may be true, but to tell me that a man, after working for eight years in a workshop, is designated as a dilutee shows a lack of interest on the part of that man in what his designation should be. If I seek employment tomorrow, I would like to know what my designation would be.

However, that apart, men are now registered without their knowledge. Any man in the engineering industry is consulted when he is registered as a dilutee. Another significant thing is that the relaxation of agreements, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, also carries a clause relating to membership of a union. Anybody who went into the engineering industry as a dilutee was under an obligation to become a member of the A.E.U. It would seem from the circular these men have sent out that, at any rate, they have not carried out that part of the agreement. We must remember also that the agreement is between the A.E.U. and the Air Ministry, and it is rather treading on dangerous ground when it is sought to solve industrial problems by political action, of which we have had complaints from hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Devizes, like most others, has great sympathy for these men. We do not object to their laying evidence before the two parties to the agreement—the Air Ministry and the A.E.U.—that they have been wrongly registered. Many men have been registered as dilutees by mistake, and on the production of evidence that they are not dilutees, the A.E.U. have been most ready to adjust their registration. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will make it clear to the House that the agreements which he entered into with the A.E.U. at the outbreak of war will be honoured until such time as the A.E.U. and the Air Ministry together can agree to the drawing up of a new agreement.

10.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson)

The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has, in effect, directed his criticisms to what, I think, are the fundamentals of the Relaxation of Customs Agreement that was signed between the Air Ministry and the Amalgamated Engineering Union in October, 1939, and it is only fair to remind the House of the origin of that agreement at a time when the country was on the threshhold of the Second World War.

At a time when the re-armament programme was being accelerated and increased beyond anything that had happened before, it was discovered that there was a shortage of skilled workers. It is only right to pay a tribute to the patriotism and public spirit of the A.E.U. and, indeed, of other unions. They had built up over many years customs—which, after all, apply in other spheres of activity besides trade unions—in the interests of their members. To make it possible to augment the labour force which was essential if we were to be able to produce the armaments that were eventually necessary for us, they agreed to relax the customs of their trade.

Under that agreement, provision was made for two classes of unskilled workers—the supplementary worker and the alternative worker. The hon. Member for Devizes will know that the alternative worker was one who had not served any apprenticeship; he had been through a Government training centre, a number of which had been established during the years preceding the second World War, and on the basis of that relatively short period of training, people were able to qualify to move up from the grade of supplementary worker to that of alternative worker, and from the grade of alternative worker to that of the skilled worker who had served his apprenticeship.

The hon. Member for Devizes suggests that he knows of cases where alternative workers—otherwise called dilutees—have been taken on in Air Ministry establishments and have never been given the designation of their work, but it seems extraordinary—and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. J. Hale)—that anyone should be taken on in an industrial establishment, whether in the Air Ministry or under private enterprise, and not realise his status as a result of his employment. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of those cases, I will certainly inquire how that position arose.

Mr. Hollis

Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that when the 1943 agreement was made, that was the first time that the Government came into it. I have the information here.

Mr. Henderson

I appreciate the point, and I will gladly receive afterwards any information which the hon. Gentleman has and look into it. My information is that the basic agreement, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, was entered into in 1944. It is true that merit pay had been paid previously by the Air Ministry to a certain number of industrial workers, but the national agreement, under which merit pay was paid, was not entered into until November, 1944.

Mr. N. Macpherson

There were some men who had already trained in Government establishments without any knowledge that this agreement was going to come along and were admitted to the industry before this was signed.

Mr. Pannell (Leeds, West)

The dilutee agreement started with the outbreak of war. The men registered for dilutee work, and there was an agreement in each case.

Mr. Henderson

The agreement under which the Air Ministry is working was entered into in October, 1939, but there were agreements affecting the engineering industry as a whole, that had been entered into before the outbreak of war in September, 1939. The point I want to emphasise with regard to this agreement is that it is only a replica of the other agreement entered into throughout the engineering industry, and it is quite inconceivable that my Department or even I as the Minister in charge should seek to abrogate the agreement of 1939 when I know that a similar agreement applies right throughout the engineering industry.

On the other hand, I want to be quite frank. I well understand the position of these men, or dilutees, or whatever they may be called. They have been with the Air Ministry five to 10 years, and they have done the particular job which they have been called upon to do both well and efficiently. I am sure we all realise that a difficult problem arises here, but I can say this, if it is of any consolation to the dilutees, that in present circumstances, and, indeed, in the foreseeable future, I cannot conceive of any question of redundancy arising. When we look upon the world today and consider the great expansion programme of defence that we are undertaking, it can be easily seen that no question of redundancy can arise.

I have already met the President, General Secretary and members of the Executive Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and as a result of those discussions we have agreed to the forming of a working party with three representatives of the A.E.U. and three representatives of the Air Ministry, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air as chairman. They will look into all those difficult problems that may arise in the operation of this agreement. Again, I have met with the fullest co-operation from the representatives of the A.E.U.

Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)

Will the dilutees be given representation?

Mr. Henderson

I think the hon. Gentleman realises that this problem goes back to the agreement that was made. There is the interest of the A.E.U. and the sacrifices of the A.E.U., and nothing can be done for the dilutees, as long as the agreement exists, except with the concurrence of the A.E.U. Further,—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.