HC Deb 03 February 1953 vol 510 cc1801-10

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

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

On 9th December of last year, the Secretary of State for War gave a Written answer to a Question which I had put to him. That answer showed that there had recently been received into the workshops of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers at Greenford, as many as 46 guns in need of repair. These guns had previously been sent to a private contractor for repair. After the supposed repair by the private contractor they were then, I believe, sent to Korea, and it was then discovered that, despite the supposed repair by the private contractor, they were totally unfit for use.

They therefore came ultimately to the R.E.M.E. workshops at Greenford, where the repairs that should previously have been done were, in fact, carried out by War Department labour and under War Department auspices at a cost of some £8,000. I am sure the House will agree that in a matter of this kind the cost is really the least consideration. There is also the question of our security and of the lives of the men whose safety might have depended on these guns having been properly repaired in the first place.

The Secretary of State for War, in his reply said that the matter was being investigated. The first question I want to put is whether it is now possible to tell us any of the results of that investigation or, failing that, whether that information will be made available at a later date. I realise that when it is decided that a piece of work like this shall be done by private enterprise, the decision where the contract is to be placed is made not by the War Department but by the Ministry of Supply, but it is, of course, the responsibility of the War Department to see that full use is made of the facilities which they have in the R.E.M.E. workshops.

I have raised this important matter of the guns because it raises in all our minds the question: is full use even now being made of the publicly owned facilities in the R.E.M.E. workshops? Since this repair work was ultimately done, and properly done, in the R.E.M.E. workshops, possibly it could have been done there in the first place.

I leave that question, important though it is, because I wish to raise the general question of the proper use by the War Department of the facilities under its control. There is one field in which I do not think that we can be satisfied that they are making proper use of these facilities, a field in which I believe there has been a tendency to use private firms, where, with greater advantage, the publicly employed civilian employees, of R.E.M.E. workshops could have been better used. I refer to the movement of vehicles.

When a vehicle is being moved from production, when it is first brought into use, that is a Ministry of Supply responsibility. But when it is being moved from ordnance depots to other places under War Department control, or when it is being taken out for use, say, in a training programme, that is a matter for which the War Department is responsible. On 9th December I addressed a Question to the Secretary of State for War on this matter, and he then said, about vehicles being moved from ordnance depots, that the work was normally done by Army drivers. He added that recently, during the period of Territorial Army training, the War Office had been obliged to enlist the help of private firms for the movement of vehicles because of the volume of work to be done.

My information is, however, that the private firm of Car-Collection, Limited, was taking vehicles from the War Department depots at Feltham and Laleham at a time when War Department civilian drivers were available for the work. I do not see why that should be done. We have to remember, first, that it is desirable to give the civilian drivers employed by R.E.M.E. a sense of security. We are more likely to get better service from them if they think that the work is so planned that the fear of redundancy does not always hang over them.

We have also to remember that when these vehicles are being driven either by Army drivers or by civilian employees of the War Department then those vehicles are in the care of somebody who is familiar with War Department vehicles, who knows the kind of care that they require and the regulations that should be observed when they are being moved. There is less certainty of that when the task is being carried out by a private firm, which has an obvious incentive to carry through the job speedily, without too much regard to whether the vehicle is being run at excessive speed.

I would therefore ask the Under-Secretary—and I am obliged to him for being here to deal with the matter—why, in the first place, a job of this kind should be given to a private firm when War Department civilian drivers were available to do it; and, secondly, if it ever is necessary to give it to a private firm, what precautions are taken to see that the private firm is fully acquainted with such matters as the speed at which the vehicle should be run and such other regulations that ought to be observed for the safety and proper care of the vehicle. Could he also say when any complaint has been subsequently received as to the condition of vehicles so driven.

I turn from that particular question of the use of R.E.M.E. civilian drivers for vehicles to the more general question of the planning of work at R.E.M.E. workshops, and, in that connection, I want to refer more particularly to the R.E.M.E. workshops at Ashford. I have referred to one or two particular workshops, but only by way of example on the general question of policy with which we are concerned, and it so happens that the workshops at Ashford particularly illustrate the point I want to make.

It is always desirable, were it at all possible, to see that the R.E.M.E. workshops are used to the full extent of their capacity. Two obvious advantages flow from that. First, if they are being used to full capacity, overhead costs are proportionately less and are spread over a greater number of jobs; and, secondly, the men working there have the assurance of security of employment and are not threatened with redundancy. I believe I am right in saying that in recent months, a number of civilian employees of the War Department have been declared redundant, and I hope the Under-Secretary may be able to confirm or deny that, and perhaps give figures of the number of men declared redundant in recent months. Perhaps he could also give an indication, for. at any rate, the immediate future, whether further redundancy is likely to threaten men in R.E.M.E. workshops.

If R.E.M.E. workshops are used to their full productive capacity, we reap two advantages—removal of the fear of redundancy and a reduction in the burden of overhead costs that have to be borne on each particular job—but that situation, where the workshops are used to full productive capacity, can only be realised granted two conditions. One is that the work they are to do is carefully planned. and, more particularly, that there shall be at any workshops of considerable size more than one programme of work running at a particular time, so that, if anything unforeseen happens to interfere with the progress of one programme, the other can be immediately accelerated and regular employment can be assured.

The Secretary of State for War, answering another question of mine, mentioned that at present the R.E.M.E. workshops at Ashford were engaged on a programme of 400 vehicles, and that another programme of 450 was being planned. Can the Under-Secretary tell us now whether that planned programme of 450 vehicles is being put into operation. and will that result in there being two programmes at the workshops at Ashford. so that regular work can be assured? The other condition necessary to a regular flow of work at the R.E.M.E. workshops is that there should be a regular flow of the necessary spare parts.

I believe, particularly in recent years. one of the more serious difficulties in ensuring a regular flow of work has been the problem of seeing that the spare parts needed for the work are always there when required. There, again, the Ministry of Supply bears some degree of responsibility for the actual provision of the spares, but I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree that since that flow of spares is something that affects the good working of R.E.M.E workshops under the control of his Department, it is a matter to which he must give some attention. I hope he will be able to say something which will give us ground for belief that R.E.M.E. workshops can in future look forward to an uninterrupted supply of spare parts so that there may be an uninterrupted flow of work.

There is one other point I wish to make about spares, and that is their condition. I understand that there has recently come to the R.E.M.E. workshops at Ashford from the War Department at Chilwell a number of spare parts in extremely poor condition which makes it impossible for them to be used for the work. They are spare parts of various types, such as, for instance, front axle beams, engine pistons, distributor brushes, parts of the clutch assembly and other spares of very considerable range and variety.

If that is the case—as I believe it to be—it is a serious matter. If articles in this condition, which are unsuitable for the work which is supposed to be done with them, are made available to R.E.M.E. workshops it will be impossible to carry out the work either at Ashford or at other R.E.M.E. workshops in a satisfactory manner.

I believe I am right in saying that there is no shortage of work for R.E.M.E. workshops to do, although one of my hon. Friends drew the attention of the House a little while ago to the fact that men turning up for Territorial training were asked to bring their own cars with them for repair in order to provide work for the R.E.M.E. to do. I am bound to say that astounds me, because I understand that quite recently work has been withdrawn from the R.E.M.E. workshop at Ashford and given to private contractors—work, for example, connected with 25-pounder guns and Lister generators.

If work is shunted from the R.E.M.E. workshops to private contractors, then, clearly, there cannot be any shortage of work to do. What is needed is the careful planning of the work with regard to the matching of programmes at the workshops and the ensuring of supplies of spares in proper condition so that as much of the work as possible can be done in the War Department's own workshops, and thus secure greater security and regularity of employment for the men employed and better value to the taxpayer for his money.

10.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison)

May I at the outset thank the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) for having sent me in advance a synopsis of the points he proposed to raise this evening which enabled me to make some investigations, which in turn, I hope. will enable me to give him satisfactory replies.

Before we enter into the more detailed explanation of the points raised, I think it important to get the question of general policy in its proper perspective. Indeed, I think from what he said, that the hon. Gentleman recognised this. As I think he will know, the general policy is that there should be a reasonably steady flow of work constantly going through these workshops, because it is clear that if there is a peak in demand—the sort of thing that at once made itself visible at the beginning of the re-armament programme —then one has to try to rush and employ large numbers of men for a temporary period—skilled labour which often is not there—and set up an expansion of the supervisory staff.

All that is in fact uneconomic, particularly if, shortly afterwards, the graph of the demand upon the workshops falls and one has to get rid of these people and one sets up a general labour disturbance all round. So the policy of the War Department has been for some time to try to anticipate a reasonably steady flow of work through these workshops which will keep men more or less permanently employed.

In addition to that, as I think the hon. Member will know, it was not our policy to tackle excessively heavy repair jobs. We have not the plant. It would involve our buying special plant, and we consider that it is more economical that these very heavy jobs should go to outside factories. It is true that there is extra space, that is floor space, available in a number of these workshops, but that is part of the policy; because if we crammed them full for a couple of months and then found that they were quite empty it would cause distress among labour. One would have to buy extra plant which would then become unused and the whole thing would become uneconomic. We think it wise, indeed necessary, to have spare room for expansion against the possibility of an emergency.

I think that it is true to say that, as long as one sticks to that type of policy, most of these repairs can be carried out generally more cheaply in our workshops than they can be carried out by outside contractors. But I would start to disagree with that as soon as the policy was changed so that one chased demand up and down. In the long run, everybody will be better off and the country will benefit if we try to keep a reasonable flow.

Against that background I turn to the detailed question of the guns which the hon. Member for Fulham, East mentioned. A large non-recurring demand for repair and overhaul of guns arose as a result of the original re-armament programme, and therefore we immediately came up against the question of policy. Were we going to expand in order to handle this large number or to follow the policy which I have outlined and hand them out to civilian firms? We decided on the latter course. Consequently, guns of varying calibres were handed to civilian firms under the aegis of the Ministry of Supply. It is true that 46 of these guns were found to be defective on return from eight civilian firms to one of our establishments in Greenford.

Mr. M. Stewart

Could the hon. Gentleman say what firms were involved?

Mr. Hutchison

I am informed that it is not customary to name firms, but if the hon. Member wants to pursue the matter further he should pursue it with the Ministry of Supply who place these orders.

These guns had to be re-treated at Greenford and were overhauled at a cost of £180 each. This immediately gave rise to the investigation which the hon. Member for Fulham, East mentioned. The matter was gone into very carefully by the Minister of Supply and the War Office jointly. It led to the following decisions being taken: firstly, that the system of inspection of equipment overhauled by private contractors would be tightened up—that is the inspection in the contractor's works; secondly, that further precautions would be taken before guns were despatched by rail. I say quite frankly that there were some defects in preparing for the transport of these guns. It was also decided that preservation and protection methods in the case of this equipment and guns whilst they were in the hands of the contractors would be tightened.

That is all that I can say. Investigation took place and it gave rise to certain steps which we hope and think will improve the situation. As the hon. Member for Fulham, East recognises, if he wants to probe more deeply I am afraid that he has to go beyond me, because the War Office is not responsible for carrying out these contracts.

The next question which the hon. Gentleman raised was that of the delivery of vehicles. Almost invariably movements of vehicles between units and depots, depots and workshops and vice versa are carried out by military or by War Department civilian drivers. Our general policy—and in this we agree with the hon. Gentleman—is to use these drivers to the fullest possible extent. I have learned of only one recent instance where we departed from that policy, and it was during the peak of the training period last year, when so many vehicles were moving that we should have had to have taken on a large number of extra civilian drivers for a short time in order to cope with that short rush period. On that occasion we resorted to outside drivers.

I am bound to say that I had not heard of this story about Car-Collection Limited moving vehicles from Feltham. If the hon. Gentleman would give more particulars about that I should like to go into it further; but it is certainly not our custom to use outside contractors in that way. Sometimes we send vehicles by rail. It depends on the journey and the type of vehicle; but sometimes that is the most economical way.

As regards repairs by outside contractors, the recovery and the delivery is also carried out under War Department arrangements. We have not had any evidence of carelessness or any complaints about the condition of the vehicles or of their handling by these civilian drivers on these occasions. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary I should be glad to have it; but when I inquired into that matter I was told that the results had been satisfactory from that point of view.

The next point raised by the hon. Gentleman was that of idle time at the R.E.M.E. workshops at Ashford, which specialise particularly in the repair and handling of "B" class vehicles. These are soft vehicles—not tanks or fighting vehicles. Last autumn I admit that the idle time there was rather high, and we were concerned to try to get it put right. The Ashford workshops are rather unique in that they are the only ones on piece rates, and that perhaps tends to emphasise the idle time and to make people more critical of the situation.

My right hon. Friend has taken up this question. We have been into the whole story on account of a number of representations made to us, and when we received those representations an investigation was carried out by the appropriate branch of the War Department—the hon. Gentleman will know which one it is—to see what could be done in order to improve this idle time situation. I should say that the average percentage of idle time in all the R.E.M.E. workshops in the country is about 6.5 per cent. Until the investigation took place the percentage at Ashford was higher, but it is now down to the average and we do not think that it is excessive. As a matter of fact it compares quite satisfactorily with the percentage in similar private concerns.

What are the causes of idle time? The hon. Gentleman has given one example which I will come to in a moment; but it is a difficulty with which we are faced in keeping the balance of skilled labour employed at the same tempo in each of its sections all the time. It is a very difficult problem, because one almost invariably has a period of time in which one's body makers, trimmers and painters, who finish off a vehicle, are waiting for the vehicle mechanics and fitters to do their jobs on the engines, and to be able to synchronise this perfectly the whole time would be an ideal which could be rarely achieved.

But we are trying, and I think we may help to put that aspect of idle time right by sending representatives from the workshops to the depots so that they can advise the depots in advance when they see a bottleneck arising and a possible shortage of work for certain men, and these representatives order forward some other vehicles to the depots a little earlier than they would otherwise have come.

Thus, at the present time there are 500 motor cycles which have been moved to Ashford and are waiting there as a kind of reserve for people to work on who otherwise would be unemployed. They are used as a sort of buffer to take up part of this idle time.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the shortage of spares. This is another difficult problem which cannot always be solved in any industry. It must be recognised that these spares are in demand in Korea and in units, as well as in the workshops. From the point of view of there never being a delay at all, the ideal would be for every one of these units and workshops to hold 100 per cent. of the potential demand—the demand which might arise at any one time; but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that would be very expensive. It would immobilise an immense number of spares which, at the end of the day, would prove never to have been needed, and, at the end of a re-armament programme, it would leave us with several times the number of spares we needed.

The solution is to try to use the centralised pool of spares in such a way that they flow, first, to the place which most needs them and which first needs them. We have therefore introduced a system—it has been going on for some time—of what I might call super-priority, priority and normal demand, so that spares will first find their way to places where they are most urgently required. I must admit that I have no information about spares arriving in a bad condition, and, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I should like to look into that matter before replying, because it would be a serious problem if it were at all extensive.

Finally, on redundancy, I would point out that the R.E.M.E. workshops all over the country have some 16,500 civilian employees. In the financial year 1952–53, the total redundancy in all those workshops was only 188–188 out of 16,500. I submit that, although it causes pangs in 188 hearts it is relatively trifling. There was no redundancy at Ashford, there were 21 redundant at Greenford. Without committing myself to a pledge, because it is difficult to pledge oneself in these days about what the future will bring, I would say that we see no danger in the immediate future of redundancy at Ashford or in R.E.M.E. workshops in general.

I think I have covered all the ground, except for the two points which I leave unanswered. On one of them, I look to the hon. Gentleman to reinforce me with information, and the other I will take up myself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Seven Minutes to Eleven o'clock.