HC Deb 13 February 1951 vol 484 cc361-72

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

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

In the subject of the Adjournment debate tonight, the importance of maintaining elderly people in productive employment, we have a national problem, which, for different reasons, is at one and the same time both a short-term and long-term policy of the gravest importance. With the need to provide extra young men for the fighting Services and to equip them, the maximum contribution from elderly men and women in agriculture and industry is as obvious as it is urgent.

This is a short-term need, and in the literal meaning of that phrase it really is "short-term." We want all possible help now, without any delay. I am sure that the debate tomorrow will show that we are behind schedule in the building up of our defences, and that will add extra point to it. Behind this short-term point of view there is the wider and ever-growing problem wherein over the next 30 years we shall have the number of young workers for industry falling off; and the proportion of the elderly members of the community likely to rise to a point where there will be insufficient young and middle-aged for both managerial and manual appointments. As a consequence, we shall find it hard to maintain any worth-while national standard of life.

I have a feeling that neither the nation nor the Government have realised the implications of the problem and its extent. Otherwise, some active attention would have been given before now to all that is behind this problem and something would have been done to utilise the vast reservoir of skill and ability which is allowed each year to trickle down the hole marked "retired." I have heard my father say on many occasions that there are young men at all ages, and there is too much truth in that for any encouragement to be given to the present tendency arbitrarily to draw a line of retirement at 60 or 65 years of age.

In any national stocktaking today the outstanding item calling for attention is the shortage of labour, particularly skilled labour. In my constituency the outstanding vacancies noted at the employment exchange last week totalled more than 1,350; and by August of this year, when a new department of one of our industries comes into full force, this figure will be substantially increased. This experience of Peterborough is an example of what is happening in many other towns and cities throughout the country. If we are to meet this problem we must have, throughout the country, about three-quarters of a million extra people at work and all this despite the fact that we have actually 1¾ million more employed now than before the war.

There are three questions which pose themselves before us tonight. First: Why are we short of this manpower, despite the extra 1¾ million employed? Second: Is this shortage likely to con- tinue? Third: and perhaps the most import: How can this shortage be met? I think the reasons for the present shortage are quite clear. We have had to make up for the general maintenance and re-equipment that went by default during the war, to make up for the fact that during six years we did not have any houses built, to make up for the shortage of consumer choice.

We have to face up to the fact that as a consequence of the extra staffs needed in Government and local government services to help administer the Welfare State, more people have been required. All this calls for increased manpower totalling at least 2,250,000 to meet these needs. Of this 1,750,000 are newcomers—more than in 1939—and the other 500,000 is made up of people who have left the distributive trades and the professions.

The second question has only to be asked for us to be able to answer it from our own knowledge. There is no doubt that the shortage is likely to last. The first reason is the re-armament programme and Service recruitment. As more men go into the Services or extend their periods of training, the drain upon the potential industrial manpower increases, and the re-armament necessary to keep these Service men equipped will call for more and more men for this sort of production.

It is interesting that the figure given in November of last year shows that at the moment we are employing about 850,000 fewer people making equipment and supplies for the Forces than was the case in 1939. Who can deny that if we are to meet the commitments placed upon us, at least this number, if not more, will have to be re-diverted to this work? The short-term prospect means that the manpower shortage is to continue; and, unfortunately, for completely different reasons, the long-term prospects give exactly the same conclusions.

One of the most important reports of recent years is the 1949 Report of the Royal Commission on Population. Every politician, industrialist, trade union official and social reformer should sleep with a copy of this Report under his pillow. It shows, for example, that in 1911 there were 2,100,000 people over 65 years of age—5.3 per cent. of the total population, representing one in 12 of the working population. Twelve young men had to look after their own families and keep one person over the age of 65. Now, owing, I suppose, to the advance in medical science, we have 5,300,000 over the age of 65–10.8 per cent. of the total population, and only one in six of the working population: only six men looking after their own families and to keep one over 65.

It is anticipated that by 1977 the over-65s will total 8,200,000–16 per cent. of the total population and one in four of the working population—only four men keeping their own families and dependants, plus one person over 65 years of age. If we add to this what is happening at the other end of the scale, where young people are being kept from producing by the higher school-leaving age, and what is happening in the middle of the scale, where social service administration is using more and more potential industrial workers, it will be seen that, in the absence of special efforts to halt this trend, we are courting national suicide by slow starvation.

What about the third question? How can this be overcome. I suggest that it must be tackled from many angles, but particularly in a partnership of four—scientists, workers, employers, and the Government. The scientist must concentrate on greater mechanisation to save unnecessary man-power, employers must make use of such inventions, and urge the maximum efficiency on managements and men, workers must forget any old-fashioned Luddite opposition to labour-saving methods, outlaw go-slow methods, and, when in good health, go on working when over 65. Central and local government must reduce its calls on potential productive workers by minimising their form filling and form sending tendencies, as well as providing the right incentives for over-65s to continue at work.

I want to use this debate to call attention to the last—to encourage over-65s to carry on in their employment. In this as on so many other occasions in the past, private industry has recognised the problem before the politicians, and has started to experiment in the ways and means of bringing this about. In my own constituency several of the industries have been trying various methods, and very successfully. One example is Messrs. Baker Perkins, Ltd., who provide an up- lift in the pension to encourage people to carry on over 65, and have so arranged it that the enhanced pension can be shared by a widow of an employee. In this firm they have also started what they call a "grandfather" scheme, employing old men on messenger duties and office boy duties. I am told that their optimum speed is lower than that of younger office boys but that their actual speed is higher because—except on rare occasions—they are less likely to be delayed on the stairs by pretty typists, or wait for the cricket results.

I have another example from Darlaston, where Rubery, Owen have put into operation what they call the "Sons of Rest" workshop scheme. In the two years that have gone by the prospects of this scheme have shown themselves in more distinct lines. At present they have nine participating, and with the exception of one who is only 69, all the others are over 70 and the eldest is 84. At the beginning these men were given the opportunity of determining what hours they wanted to work. It is not without significance that all except one preferred to work the full day. They start work one hour later than the main works, to take them out of the rush and give them an extra hour in bed, and they carry on until 5 p.m. for the whole of the five working days. The method is interesting. Suitable work is selected from the main establishment which the old folk can reasonably handle. The men are paid normal day rates according to their skill, and no pressure is applied as to how speedily they work. There is no restriction on the number of times they may rest, but the occasions they take advantage of the opportunity to rest are very few in number, and the quality of their work and the speed with which it is turned out compare very favourably with the results in the main establishment.

The firm are satisfied that they have got over their teething troubles, and are ready to justify their experiment still further by extending it to many more of their workpeople. I do feel that the Government should be giving more attention—active attention—towards this important end. The Government should set a better example by engaging older people for, or keeping old people in, the Civil Service and the nationalised industries and the public corporations.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of what has been done in this direction in the Civil Service to retain people after the normal retiring age? The Government have been doing it for 10 years.

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman is, obviously, easily satisfied because, as the numbers employed show, in the Civil Service or the nationalised industries rules seem all too keen to get employees to the age for retirement.

As a result of trying to bring the facts to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope that the Government will follow the lines I have mentioned of firms at Peterborough and Darlaston; I hope they will check up on these schemes so that other firms, as well as the Government, can take advantage of the experiments which have been made. That is the general line, but in addition, I feel that it is worth the while of the Government to think about whether they should still follow the present retirement pension system. I say that because it has outlived itself. If the old age pension could be paid in addition to any wages earned, I am certain that more of the over-65s would carry on in employment.

One meets far too many cases nowadays where a person says, "I have paid for the pension, and would like to enjoy it." Many do not think they may live to the age of 70, and they say that if they could get their first pension now and go on working they would keep their jobs in order to earn the extra money to meet the high cost of living today. If that cannot be done, I suggest that the figure for casual earnings should be raised to at least 60 shillings before the pension is stopped; but, if that is a little too ambitious, then I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some support to the Private Member's Bill which is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. G. Longden) on this subject, because the general outline of that Bill is one which must commend itself to anyone in the country today who appreciates the seriousness of our commitments and who wishes to meet them.

The whole problem being discussed tonight is vital to the nation's industrial position; but, quite apart from that most important aspect, it is a very human matter. It is surely better than we should have old people at work than that we should take married women away from their homes and their children; and it is good for the old people, because it ensures that they earn money, and it is good for their health as a result of their being fully occupied. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has had a very friendly conversation with me before this debate, as a result of which I find that we have a great deal in common, that when warm humanity and cold economic fact call for exactly the same thing, then the Government has a duty. That duty is to be both alert and vigorous in giving a satisfactory answer to this call.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)

I will not keep the House for more than a few minutes, but the hon. Member has raised an important point and one about which I am not very satisfied. He said that somebody had drawn a line which meant that people arbitrarily had to finish work. I would ask him where is it that that line has been drawn, and who is it who has drawn it?

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

National Insurance.

Mr. Jones

These lines have been drawn by those engaged in that form of industry known as private enterprise. There have been Government concerns in this, but mainly it has been private enterprise. I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) should be complimented on having made one of the first really constructive speeches which has come from the Opposition benches for a very considerable time. I pay tribute to it, for it was a constructive speech designed to help the Government to divert labour in our difficult times.

There are hon. Members here who have advocated for some considerable time the extension of working hours by the younger people. I make no apology for being one of the chief advocates for that, and I fully and completely agree that because a man is 65 years of age, that is not the test. Age is not the test of a man's ability to serve his fellow-men. I know Men of 45 years who are hopeless and useless and men of 65 years and beyond, in my own industry, who are some of the finest steel-workers in the world.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough in bringing this matter forward in the knowledge that there is in some of our older people a better class of workmen who, in some cases, have a greater patriotism than some of the younger generation have shown. They are the type we shall have to depend upon. I want to remind the House that arbitrary lines have been drawn primarily by private enterprise interests. The Government itself set a very high standard, when the Prime Minister appealed to the country two years ago, or perhaps a little longer, for men over 65 years of age to continue in employment.

We, on this side of the House, saw that then, and the Prime Minister made his statement accordingly, and that statement holds good. I congratulate the hon. Member in regard to the firms he mentioned, and in which I have some peculiar, specific knowledge, who have set a standard which, I hope, will be followed for the good of the country.

Mr. Angus Maude (Ealing, South)

I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. J. Jones) said, but does he not agree that these arbitrary lines—the age limits—were, in fact, laid down by both sides of industry, in agreement? The trade unions were as anxious to get this, in the interests of promotion, as anybody else.

Mr. Jones

That may be true in normal circumstances. When markets of the world and demands are normal, one can lay down agreements. But in the present circumstances, no trade union in its fight senses would want to do anything but give elasticity to the agreement in the interests of the nation.

12.17 a.m.

Wing Commander Bullus (Wembley, North)

Even at this late hour, the House will recognise that the subject raised is an important one which exercises the minds of a large and important section of the community. I think there was a special significance in the problem a few years ago when many ex-Members of this honourable House found they had practical and personal experience of the difficulty of finding suitable employment once middle-age had been reached. That was in the exodus of 1931 and, to a lesser degree, that was the experience last year. In the present period of apparent full employment, finding suitable work for the over-50s becomes at once a special problem.

I wish to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to one doubtful aspect of the problem about which I would like some information and about which questions have been asked today. I want to be very brief, because there are only a few minutes left in which the Parliamentary Secretary may reply. It would appear that of many private employment agencies in this country some are disreputable. They usually fail to find jobs after the payment of registration fees, and, if jobs are found, commission is exacted. The current number of the "British Legion Journal," which, no doubt, many hon. Members have read, calls attention to this malpractice and quotes cases. I have not time to do so, but only to refer hon. Members to the cases quoted in the journal. There are cases on the files of the British Legion where ex-Service men have lost anything from £10 to £100, and the ex-Service men particularly are hit in seeking employment. Many of them are over 50 years of age. It is to be hoped that the Ministry of Labour can weed out these disreputable agencies without affecting the established ones which serve a useful purpose for the community.

12.20 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) for raising this extremely important problem, and I am sure I am expressing the wish of the whole House when I say I wish we could have had more time to spend on this vital matter. I have only six or seven minutes left to me and I obviously cannot develop this as much as I would like. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government appreciate the tremendous importance of this issue. We know that the increased expectation of life is a very fine thing, but it does bring in its train certain problems which we have not had to face before. For instance, in 1911, 67 per 1,000 of the population were men over 65 and women over 60; in 1947 the proportion was 131 per 1,000; and we estimate that by 1977 the proportion will be 192 per 1,000.

I believe that, in the main, it is a question of getting a new attitude of mind towards this problem. I think we all agree that today men of 65 and women of 60 are far fitter than ever they have been in our industrial experience. Therefore, as we see this welcome tendency for older people to remain fit, we must get rid of the old conception of employers, and employees as well in many respects, of thinking that because in certain insurance Acts there is an age limit of 65 for men and 60 for women that is the age at which they should feel old, and retire.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point when he mentioned the fact that earnings over a certain level penalised a person in receipt of a pension. I think that is an issue we must look at. I cannot commit the Government in any way tonight, but I appreciate the great importance of it. I do not believe it is true to say, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the Government are way behind certain very advanced firms, who I congratulate most heartily on the schemes they have put into being. I should like to see many more private firms emulate their example. The Government have a very fine example in this respect. I do not want to go through the whole of the figures I gave on a previous occasion, but the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that of non-industrial male civil servants in posts on 1st April, 1950, 36 per cent. of a total of 304,000 were over 50 years of age.

Brigadier Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

We are talking of people over 60 years of age.

Mr. Lee

I believe that if that general level were to obtain throughout the whole of industry this problem would not exist.

Brigadier Clarke

The problem is not with those of 50, but those of 60.

Mr. Lee

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads the speech I made on 19th July last he will see that I dealt with the question of people of 60 years of age as well.

Our policy is designed to encourage the employment of older workers to the maximum extent. It is not only based on the general shortage of labour, especially for the defence and export programmes, but because of the increasing span of life and better standards of life and fitness. The expansion of the defence programme makes it imperative that labour resources should be fully employed, and that the total of the employed workers should be supplemented by the employment of all men and women willing and able to give useful service, irrespective of age, and in some cases, indeed, in spite of disabilities. If full use is not made of the whole labour force of the country the impact of the defence programme on exports and production for home consumers must inevitably be accentuated.

Equally important are the long-term aspects of the changes in the age groupings of the population. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are most seriously concerned. The Minister has placed this matter before the National Joint Advisory Council. We discussed it with representatives of both employers and trade unions, and they assured us of their cooperation in circularising their members to ensure that this new aspect of things there is an understanding that we cannot constantly increase the number of pensioners while, at the same time, giving a far greater percentage of the national income to the young people, in school meals and all those facilities, and, at the same time, give a rising standard of living to the workers in industry as well unless we can keep a larger number of people in industry, using better methods of productivity, and in that manner extend the "cake" so that all sections can enjoy a higher standard of life.

That is our aim and object, and I hope that from this debate the country as a whole will realise the importance of this issue, and that, although we all require and wish to see an expanding economy, a higher standard of life for all our people, we cannot go on increasing the number of people who are retiring from industry and expect the higher standard of life which we would all like to give them, unless we can get higher productivity from those who remain within industry.

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

Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.