HC Deb 07 December 1951 vol 494 cc2779-89

3.4 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman (Coventry, North)

The question of redundancy in the engineering and associated industries, which I wish to raise this afternoon, is one of vital concern not only to my own constituency, but to the country as a whole, and I want to put two direct questions to the Government.

The first is what the Government are doing in order to restrict the amount of redundancy which is now appearing in the engineering industries, and, more than the amount of redundancy, the amount of under-employment which is apparent throughout the whole range of the engineering and associated industries.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)

Will my hon. Friend allow me? I take it that he is making a general statement of fact regarding the whole engineering industry. If that is so, it does not happen to be the fact of the case.

Mr. Edelman

If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend is a little premature, and that it would have been more courteous on his part to allow me to develop my argument a little further before his interruption.

The second question which I have to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is what machinery he proposes to set up in order to ensure that labour which is redundant is directed to the right quarter, and to make certain that the right labour goes to the right job.

I have been reading the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" in order to ascertain the official figures on the question of unem- ployment and redundancy in the engineering industry. While I am satisfied with the official figures published by that excellent publication, none the less I feel that I ought to bring to the attention of the Minister and the whole House the view of the men directly concerned with the industry and those of the trade union officials who are also concerned with the matter in order that their opinion may be heard as to the situation in those industries today.

Only recently the Secretary of the Coventry Branch of the National Union of Sheet Metalworkers said, in what I would describe as a homely phrase, "Frankly, we have got the wind up." At approximately the same time, the Secretary of the Coventry branch of the National Union of Vehicle Builders, an industry which is associated, certainly in the motor trade, very closely with the engineering industry, said: About 60 per cent. of our members who still have jobs are now working on short time, and in most cases the cut is very severe. Whereas they used to work nine hours and overtime, they are now cut to 6i hours. This sort of thing has been going on for six months. It is obvious that it is almost impossible for the Ministry of Labour to check the degree of under-employment—and this is the point I want to emphasise—which exists in the factories throughout the country. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) said quite categorically, when he interrupted me at the beginning of my speech, that the redundancy which I mentioned in a generic sense does not exist, it is quite obvious that we can only get detailed evidence of the degree of underemployment by having an exact inquiry and a census of what is going on in the factories. At the moment, there is certainly no machinery for doing that, and all that one can obtain is the impression of people who are directly concerned with industry regarding whether there is or is not under-employment in the factories.

One thing is quite certain, and that is that in many factories up and down the country concerned with the engineering and allied trades there is an acute steel shortage, and the very fact of the existence of this shortage is a priori justification for assuming that there is under-employment in these factories. One knows from one's own experience that in the motor industry, for example, there are firms working on short time and have been so doing ever since the Americans failed to deliver the sheet steel which was on contract.

Is it not the case that today there has been a shortfall of deliveries of American sheet steel to the extent of approximately 50,000 tons? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that point, because I believe that today the Americans are beginning to realise their responsibility for the industry of this country.

I am not suggesting that we require the Americans to come to our aid because of any inadequacy on our part, and, in fact, I would call in evidence of the effort which Britain has made in steel output, not only under private enterprise but also under nationalisation, the American magazine "Life," a right wing journal, which certainly could not be accused of any partiality towards the present Government's predecessors. In an editorial on 3rd December, this magazine writes: The best cure for the United Kingdom economic crisis is not more United States dollars, but United States steel. Britain's steel industry, both before and since nationalisation, has been producing flat-out. Lack of German scrap, etc., is starving it, and the U.S.A. can help out in two ways. First, we could stop importing steel and iron ore from sources—notably Sweden—that are traditionally Britain's. Secondly, we could guarantee to send Britain enough of our own steel—especially sheet and plate—to make up an extra 800,000 to 1,000,000 tons. The British are not asking for a present, but just an assured position among our own steel industry's priority customers. What action has the Ministry taken to obtain delivery of the actual quantities of United States steel which were on contract and which the United States suppliers have failed to deliver? We hear very often about what we owe America. I think sometimes we ought to ask ourselves what America owes us. Here is a case in point where we had a firm contract of a most specific kind and where our own industry has been hindered and hampered by the failure of American suppliers to deliver the quantities on contract.

There is not only a moral but a contractual obligation on the part of United States suppliers to see to it that we get the steel for which they have contracted. If that is done I am sure that the whole situation throughout the engineering industry, which is dependent upon steel and which at the present juncture is dependent for its full functioning on American steel, would be changed.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consult with his right hon. Friend in order that the Prime Minister may be informed of the situation before he goes to Washington. I hope that when the Prime Minister does go there he will urge on the United States that there should be a common pool of our steel resources in order that we can effectively discharge our common task.

There is one other matter on which I hope to receive a reply at the end of this debate. Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a new Control of Engagement Order or an Order of a similar kind, by whatever name it may be called? What is the intention of the Government in order by their own judgment to secure the right amount of labour goes into the right places?

Here I quote again the Secretary of the Coventry branch of the National Union of Vehicle Builders: The whole source of the present trouble in my opinion is that the re-armament programme has been started without the shops being ready and instead of their being able to transfer the men to this work … they are in fact put out a work. It seems to me the position today is that the tapering off of the civilian production programme and the beginning of the armament production programme are out of phase. What do the Government propose to do to adjust matters?

There is another point in that connection. We know that the present Government, despite their former abhorrence of physical controls, are now trying to institute some form of allocation of raw materials in order to squeeze labour into what are considered useful channels. The present Government have been extremely harsh on the small businessman and manufacturer, and I hope that the process of allocation will be done in such a way as to cause the minimum of suffering.

After all, the essential thing with which we are concerned today is not merely statistics, not merely computations by adding machines in the Ministry of Labour. It is the human consideration which will enter into this great transfer of labour from one form of industry to another. I hope the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that any transfer of labour in an attempt to deal with this problem of redundancy will be done in a manner which will be efficacious, sympathetic to those concerned and, above all in a manner which will be humane.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) quoted in support of his cause the sheet metal workers' and the vehicle builders' trade unions. I think a far better yardstick would be to quote the comparable figures in the Amalgamated Engineering Union of which my hon. Friends the Members for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and Keighley (Mr. Hobson) are members, and to which body they have rendered distinguished service. The membership figures of the Amalgamated Engineering Union are in excess of 840,000. When the present Government came into office we had.018 of our members out of work—431 in the country. In five weeks the number had increased to 1,787 of our members out of work, which is equal to.023. I suggest that these figures for the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which is broadly based on the whole of the engineering trade and which caters for vehicle builders as well, may give a better index of the position.

I took some trouble to get some figures in relation to Coventry, Birmingham, and Oxford, and I understand that the Trades Union Congress Advisory Committee for the Midlands has this matter under consideration. There are at the moment only 20 A.E.U. members signing the vacant book in Coventry; they usually sign for three days before they get benefit. It would be entirely wrong to play this down, or to suggest that there is not some misgiving in the industry. I am convinced that there is a great deal of hidden unemployment in the engineering industry.

Employers are afraid to discharge men because under the conditions of full employment as we know them today they do not wish to lose key men. We want from the Government at the earliest possible moment a statement of what they are going to do about this urgent matter in respect of the allocation of raw materials, especially steel. I believe that in the City of Coventry employees of Rootes are on three days a week, and one of the Nuffield organisations has about 1,500 people on short time.

Mr. Edelman

My hon. Friend began by making certain invidious comparisons between the numbers of people employed and belonging to different unions. That is a matter of small interest compared with the overall question of the number of people who are actually employed in the industry. When he now says that in my constituency there are people who are working on such conspicuously short time as three days a week, surely he is disproving him own argument?

Mr. Pannell

I am not. I am trying to take the overall position in the country. I would only reprove my hon. Friend in the same way as he reproved my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), for jumping in in a precipitate way before I finished my argument. I gave the overall position, and I said that there was a degree of hidden unemployment. It is not a question of men being unemployed but under-employed. In effect, in Birmingham Britannia Tubes, a part of Tube Investments Ltd., have had a cut of 50 per cent. in their materials, which has meant that 18 per cent. of the total men employed have been stood down on short time, and Singer Motors are working four days a week.

I have little time in which to speak and I do not wish to utilise the time of the Parliamentary Secretary, but what I have tried to prove with the figures relating to the Amalgamated Engineering Union is that there is this tendency setting in for the first time for many years owing to a shortage of materials. Knowing engineers, because I have been of their order all my life, I am aware of the sort of worry which will arise, particularly with the older men. I have not forgotten the days when I came out of my apprenticeship, during the period of depression.

The Parliamentary Secretary will know what I mean when I refer to a massacre taking place in the shops. Anyone who has had the experience of standing in an engineering shop and seeing the foreman come out with the pay-off will appreciate that it is a dismal and depressing experience. There are those of us on this side of the House who have had experience of that sort of thing, and our union has a great interest in this matter. I am not attempting to play down the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North, has made, but I have tried to set it in its right perspective.

We ask that the Government shall make a statement at the earliest possible moment in order to end all this talk and worry. If we were satisfied that our men are working, not nine-and-a-half hours a day, not long overtime, but at least maintaining the 44-hour week, we should still consider that there was a state of full employment in society.

3.21 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter (Southall)

I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments and I will not go over the ground already covered. From the information I have this problem is, at the moment, confined to the Midlands, and it is confined almost wholly to the motor trade and its subsidiaries. Heavy industry, ship building, and so on, appear to have adequate materials to carry on at present.

It is not a question of a shortage of orders; it is not a question of a shortage of work; it all arises on the question of the allocation of materials, and it would perhaps have been helpful if the Minister of Supply had been here to state precisely what he intends to do about the allocation of materials. After all, it is vital that the engineering labour should be fully utilised today. That is one of the most important things about which we are concerned.

I understand that the regional controller for the Midland area has asked that a full statement should be made about the prospects for the industry, because if there is to be a smaller allocation for the motor car works, then the sooner we turn them over to armament production the better it will be, in order to enable a flow of materials to enter the firms. In that area we have some of the most highly-skilled engineers in the world. To some extent they are cooling their heels at present, yet we heard yesterday that we were not meeting in full the re-armament programme. It seems to me, therefore, that it is very important that we should have a full statement on the position.

It is not a problem of labour; it is a problem of materials and allocation of materials, which, I understand, will not be fully settled until next February. I wonder whether something could be done to bring that settlement forward so that the materials can be properly allocated and the various firms told on precisely what basis they can make their plans for the future.

3.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Sir Peter Bennett)

I think we must keep a sense of proportion in this matter, and some hon. Members opposite have tried to do so.

Mr. Hobson

We know something about it.

Sir P. Bennett

This is, of course, a marginal question; the amount of steel which has caused the present trouble is nothing of a catastrophic order. I can understand the men who have been in certain employment for many years being concerned about any change that takes place. That is understandable. But let us look at the figures.

Last year 16½ million tons of steel were produced. This year the figure looks like being something like 15¾ million tons. Next year, by a slight rearrangement, and with exports being reduced, home supplies will be slightly higher. Out of that, of course, must come the allocation to defence. The fact remains, however, that people have to use that steel and work on it.

What we are discussing is only marginal at present. If there were a very big fall in steel production there would be more trouble and difficulty, but the estimates we have from the Ministry of Supply are the figures I have given and I do not think, therefore, that we need expect the trouble to be of a drastic order. It will mean inconvenience. Men who have been working in one form of work all their lives do not like changing to another form. They like to use their skill in the way in which they have been brought up to use it. Secondly, they do not like dropping the money, which is what it means when a man goes to another firm. It takes a little time to climb back to the former money, if ever he does climb back, and, therefore, he resents it.

The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) is concerned with the sheet metal workers and the vehicle workers, and there has been more trouble in that section than in the other sections of engineering. That trouble has been created by the shortage of sheet steel and tin plate—the only two forms of steel which have been allocated. The fact remains that at the moment it is not sheet steel which is dominating the position so much as the general shortage of all types of steel, which is causing trouble and difficulty.

The Ministry of Supply is working on this problem, as it is their problem. There has been a shortfall in steel from America. The position has been put to America. The hon. Member asked if we would tell the Prime Minister. I can assure him the Prime Minister knows all about that. No opportunity will be lost of putting to our American friends the fact that if we have more steel we shall get on with the re-armament more quickly than we are doing today.

Mr. Edelman

The hon. Member has been good enough to refer to the point I made on American steel. Will he tell us what quantity of American steel he anticipates will arrive in this country in the next quarter?

Sir P. Bennett

That is not a matter for the Ministry of Labour. It is a matter for the Ministry of Supply.

Other questions the hon. Member has asked will have to be dealt with when we return. There was the question of the Control of Engagement Order. The Minister is working on that. He is discussing it with the National Joint Advisory Council. We cannot deal with that at this moment. It is being looked into. The whole situation is being carefully considered. A statement will, no doubt, be made at an early date when we return.

Mr. Edelman

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned two questions I asked him. Now may I ask him this? Will a decision be taken on the prospective Control of Engagement Order during the period when Parliament is not sitting? In the event of a decision being taken, should not its promulgation not be until Parliament resumes, so that we may have a proper opportunity for discussing it?

Sir P. Bennett

As I said, the Minister is discussing it with the Joint Advisory Council, and the matter will be gone into very closely, and there will be nothing done outside the joint arrangement or without Parliament being informed. I cannot say any more than that at the moment.

The question of short time has been mentioned. Figures which have been produced show that there has been a drop in the number of short-time workers and that there is a slight increase in the number of actual unemployed, which is what one would expect with developing troubles and shortages. A certain number are being stood off and less short time is being worked at the moment, as compared with the summer and autumn. Of course, this varies from week to week. There is always a movement going on; there are always one or two men going.

I come now particularly to Coventry. The reports show that there is a slight variation from week to week. Men leave. This is an age when men do change their jobs, and move about far more than they used in the old days. As hon. Members opposite know, it is one of the problems we have had in the industry. The idea, of course, is to get the employers, wherever they can, to report when they are going to discharge workers, and the local officer of the Ministry of Labour interviews those workers at their employment, if he possibly can, and offers them new employment. That is the procedure which has been agreed in principle between the Ministry and the National Joint Advisory Council. All these men do not accept the offers. Some of them like to find their own jobs.

As to the four firms in Coventry that probably are reporting, directly or indirectly, to the hon. Member, they stopped 220 people, I am advised, during November. It is only a small proportion when we think of the number of people employed in the vehicle and motor car manufacturing and allied trades in Coventry. Of those men, most have already been found work. The local records show that 38 are still unemployed on the books. They have been offered other work, but they want to try to find jobs in their own industry if they can. I suppose they can afford to wait while they are looking round. The Department is doing all it can to help. It has even gone to Rugby where there is a shortage of labour, and Rugby has said it will take some of those men if they are suitable and give them a period of training and get them into some other department.

One thing which we cannot guarantee is that a man shall have exactly the same job all his working life, whatever happens. At the present time, there is a shortage of labour in the engineering world generally, and particularly in the Midlands. There is, however, increased work being put into the armament industries, and the difficulty in future will not be shortage of work, but shortage of labour as the defence programme develops. Let us get a sense of balance and realise that we are dealing with a marginal problem, and that there is nothing to cause the workers as a whole any great fear of unemployment developing in the future.