§ 2. Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that for the Royal group of docks, average daily unemployment rose among dock workers from 1,022 in April, 1952, to 1,432 in September, 1952, an average of 1,175 during this period against an average of 369 for the corresponding period in 1951; what was the reason for this absolute increase of 806 from 1951 to 1952; and what action he proposes to take to bring about full employment among the dock workers in the Royal group of docks.
§ 3 and 4. Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Labour (1) why unemployment among dockworkers has risen from an average of 3,513 in September, 1951, to an average of 18,027 in mid-October, 1952; and what action he proposes to take to reduce this figure;
(2) why unemployment among London dock workers increased from an average of 3,349 in June to 6,275 in mid-October; 1559 and what action he proposes to take in view of this increase.
§ Sir W. MoncktonThe rise in the average number of registered dock workers surplus to requirements is largely due to a decline in imports and exports. More regular employment in the docks is dependent upon an increase in trade, which it is the declared policy of the Government to promote by every means in their power.
§ Mr. LewisI know the Minister is very concerned at this serious rise in unemployment. Has his attention been drawn to the leading article in this morning's "Daily Mirror," in which certain suggestions are made. It says:
men should not have to sit around all day in cafes wasting their time and money, merely to be on call.It goes on further to say that it is wrong they should have to be on call as many as 11 times in a week and that really during this period they should be relieved of that necessity. Will the Minister consider that suggestion so far as the dockers are concerned while this abnormal position obtains?
§ Mr. MellishWill the Minister be good enough, before he changes anything in dockland, to take into consideration the views of the trade unions?
§ Sir W. MoncktonI should certainly do that. On the other matter, I am obliged to the hon. Member for West Ham, North for drawing my attention to the article he mentioned which—I think exceptionally—I have not seen, but I will pay attention to it.
§ Sir W. SmithersIs not the real reason for unemployment in the docks the policy of restriction of imports, which inevitably means restriction of exports? Will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the Government to do away with those restrictions as soon as possible?
§ 10. Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Labour how many workers at Salford docks are registered as unemployed or are signing on under guaranteed wage agreements; and if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Dock Labour Board.
§ Sir W. MoncktonIn the week ending 8th November the number of registered 1560 dock workers surplus to requirements at Salford docks was 269, or 10.9 per cent. of the local register. I have no statement to make about my meeting with the National Dock Labour Board, the purpose of which was to give an opportunity for an exchange of information.
§ Mr. RoyleWill the Minister be able to tell us when he can give us a report on what he discussed with the Dock Labour Board? Further, can he give us any indication on behalf of his right hon. Friends about when this matter of policy in regard to imports and exports is to be tackled by the Government?
§ Sir W. MoncktonThe answer to the first part of the question is that I am still in communication with the National Dock Labour Board, giving them some information. I am anticipating hearing from them in the near future. As soon as I do, I will make known to the House what has happened. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, as he will realise, that matter is not wholly within my province, but I do what I can.
§ Mr. GaitskellCould the Minister tell us what increase in volume of imports and exports would be necessary to restore full employment in the dock areas?
§ Sir W. MoncktonI think I must ask for notice of that question.
§ 17. Mr. Irvineasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a report to the House upon his recent discussions with members of the National Dock Labour Board.
§ Sir W. MoncktonI would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle).
§ Mr. IrvineWill the Minister bear in mind the desirability of giving as much information as is possible of the discussions now going on about the policy to be pursued, in view of the general anxiety which is felt on this subject?
§ Sir W. MoncktonI can very well understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, which I share, but I think it would be better for me to make a statement to the House when the present discussions are concluded. I shall not delay it then.
§ Sir J. CrowderWill my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the increased levy to be paid by the employers to the National Dock Labour Board must be passed on to the consumer and will therefore mean a rise in the cost of exports abroad, which is a very serious position?
§ Sir W. MoncktonThe repercussions of the increased levy are very much in my mind.
§ Mr. AwberyWill the Minister make available to the House a copy of the reports of the port efficiency committees set up in March of this year and which no one has yet seen?
§ Sir W. MoncktonPerhaps I may be allowed to look into that.