HC Deb 03 June 1957 vol 571 cc1035-46

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

9.59 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)

Tonight, in raising the matter of the cancellation of the supersonic bomber and the effect on technology in Coventry and elsewhere, I should like to assure the Minister that I am not doing it either because I object to the defence cuts or only because of their effect in Coventry, but because I believe that the resources of skill, equipment and research in this matter of aircraft engines which we have developed in this country are about to be wasted in a way which I think the Government never envisaged when the cuts were made.

It is not only that cancellation of defence contracts has forced redundancy on us, but, as was stated in Coventry the other day: It is experimental work for the future which has now been stopped.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Miss Burton

Coventry has got to be the example tonight for what I want to say, but I would ask the Minister to realise that not only in this country but, I believe, in Scotland, thousands of young people will not take advantage of opportunities in technological education because of what the Government have done. I want to suggest to the Minister that we just cannot afford this happening.

In the Budget debate on 15th April I tried to explain to the House that we had among the workers of Coventry a feeling of cynicism about the future and, in fact, a belief that there was no security of employment under this Government. As the Minister will know, apart, probably, from the 10,000 employees in the big aircraft firms in Coventry, there are many employed on sub-contract work. They and the unions are anxious to know exactly what is envisaged for the future of employment in the whole area of the city. The Coventry District Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has kept on asking for the Minister of Defence to receive a deputation, but so far without success.

In the debate on 15th April I told the Chancellor that in Coventry those who were emigrating were doing so no because of taxation, but because they felt that they had not enough opportunity here. I wish to quote a sentence from what I said in that debate, because it has a direct bearing on what we are discussing tonight: I should have thought we would all agree that the type of man whom I have mentioned—an engineer or technician, skilled and comparatively young—is the very type we cannot afford to lose. When the Chancellor replied to that debate he seemed to agree, because he said: They are emigrating, in the main, because they want more opportunities. One of the ways of keeping them here is to ensure that they have more opportunities if they remain and make their lives in this country.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 1635– 82.] I want to put to the Minister tonight the case of Armstrong Siddeley Motors Ltd. That company set out in 1943 to re-establish an aero-engine research and development organisation with a view to entering the new field of gas turbine engines. As the Minister knows, that activity increased regularly year by year as a result of Ministry of Supply support which was given on an expanding scale only as a result of the technical merit of the organisation.

I cannot go into figures, but for the financial year 1956–57 a large expenditure on this activity was incurred. Last August, in accordance with the usual custom proposals were submitted for the budget for the year commencing April, 1957. The proposed spend was greater still, the increase was largely due to the introduction of an advanced engine into the programme. At the beginning of April this year the company was warned that as a result of the change in Government defence policy, cuts in the development vote were likely, and a preliminary estimate indicated the probable maximum expenditure.

At the beginning of May, the company received an official letter from the Ministry of Supply advising it of the extent and nature of the cuts, and stating the maximum expenditure for the current year. That represented a reduction of 37 per cent. on the spend for the year 1956–57 and a reduction of 45 per cent. on the estimated spend for the current year. But one month of this current year had already gone and drastic measures had to be taken to reduce the spend to the maximum permitted.

As the Minister knows, the Armstrong Siddeley Company proposes to retain its staff of designers and engineers and to embark on the design and the development of new products, which it hopes will provide productive work in the years to come. The Minister knows as well as I that it will take some two or three years before the result of the firm's efforts are seen in production quantities on the shop floor.

The company is faced with the immediate necessity of reducing its skilled experimental labour force and the supporting office staffs sufficiently to ensure that it does not exceed the new budget figure. We know that immediate steps are being taken by the company to find alternative work. I saw the other day, as I expect the Minister knows, that a licence agreement has just been concluded between Armstrong Siddeley and the Garrett Corporation, of Los Angeles, covering the manufacturing and selling rights in this country of the American firm's auxiliary power gas turbine and air turbine started. Welcome though that is. I think the Minister will agree with the company and with me that it does not make the prospects of avoiding redundancy much better.

Many of the skilled people which this company will have to turn off are specialists in precision crafts who have been with the company for many years. What alarms me is that it is most doubtful whether the industries in Coventry will be able to absorb them all. In fact, on 14th May the Minister of Labour, replying to me, as reported in column 185 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, said: I understand that 250 workers have been given notice which is due to expire on 22nd May and that thirty of these have already left voluntarily. The remainder are being interviewed at the factories by my local officers with a view to helping them to obtain other employment. The prospects of placing them in their own occupations locally or within daily travelling distance are not good.."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 185.] Last week, I asked the Minister a Question in which I pointed out that these numbers had already increased to 535. I quoted that Answer which he had given and asked whether those additional numbers of men would also be unable to find work in Coventry. This is not the concern of the Minister who is to reply to this debate, but the Minister of Labour on that occasion intimated that he had said no such thing; but tonight I have quoted his words.

I am not impressed, and the people of Coventry are not impressed, by constantly being told about these continual consultations between the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. They have brought nothing to us at all. In fact, it seems to me very much as though the great cooperation which should exist between these Ministries does not come about quickly enough, because if they cannot cope with men until they have been dismissed, and if they have not advance notice of this, what is the use of having continual consultations? Does not the Minister think that it would be better if work could be found for these people in Coventry, where the facilities exist, rather than suggest that they should be transferred out of the city by the new arrangements which have been made by the Minister of Labour?

I am coming to a matter which the Minister knows I intend to raise, and it is the future of the aero-engine business at Armstrong Siddeley and in Coventry generally. The Ministry of Supply budget for this year in respect of Armstrong Siddeley does not include work on any new engine. The Minister will agree with me there. It only supports research and development on already existing engines. From that I assume, I hope wrongly, that unless a new engine is included in the programme, the Ministry support on research and development at Armstrong Siddeley will disappear when the engines at present in service and under development become obsolete.

I put it to the Minister that the planning of Armstrong Siddeley—and I think we must accept the agreement of the Ministry of Supply with this policy—did not see such a state of affairs arising, particularly as Armstrong Siddeley, after eighteen months of design study and in competition with the whole of the aero-engine companies in England, had been awarded the contract for the design and development of a very advanced engine. It was the engine of the supersonic bomber. I think it is obvious to anybody that the fact that the company was awarded this contract in the face of the most fierce competition must mean that in the opinion of the Ministry of Supply it was technically competent to undertake advanced projects. I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me.

The Government's decision not to proceed with the supersonic bomber meant that the specific engine requirement no longer existed. I realise that. Nevertheless, the company, as its considered opinion, was sure that one day in the future the requirement for an engine to fly at the speed envisaged, whether for military or civil use would exist, so it submitted to the Ministry of Supply proposals for continuing with the research and development which would be required to produce such an engine. In making that statement I would emphasise once again that the company accepted that it would be looked upon as a research project for the future, and that the rate of spend for this development should be considerably reduced.

Despite all this, the proposal was turned down by the Ministry of Supply in April. It is without dispute anywhere that this country has, in the past, derived considerable export business by being in the forefront of technical development on engines. Armstrong Siddeley itself, as the Ministry will know, has earned more than £7 million from dollar sources through its Sapphire licences, with considerable further earnings to accrue. It seemed to us that continued development of the advanced engine referred to would, in the course of time, again be a profitable export project.

That seems strange enough, but it seems to become incomprehensible if we look at the speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in another place on 9th May, 1957, when he was giving the Government's policy. He said: The manned supersonic bombers have therefore been cancelled, but I do not want to give the impression that we have in any way terminated research on supersonic problems of air transport. Indeed, a very large volume of supersonic research and development remains in our programme. Much of this may well be of benefit to supersonic air transport, whatever form it ultimately takes. The cancellation of the present bomber does not affect the Government's determination to press on with the study of supersonic transport aircraft, which has been launched in consultation with a number of aircraft companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th May, 1957; Vol. 203, c. 552.] If a Government spokesman says that a very large volume of supersonic research and development remains in the programme surely it would have been common sense to allow that research and development to continue with a firm where all the development was ready. As everyone knows, and not least the Parliamentary Secretary, it is a long and slow business to build up a competent team of technical specialists to undertake the type of work in which this firm has been engaged. Such a team will continue with a company provided that it can see the continuing introduction of advanced projects which represent a challenge to its technical capacity.

I hope that the Minister agrees with me. I can assure him that the country, myself, and the industry have been concerned for some time at the number of young, scientifically-trained people who are leaving for the American Continent. It is no use increasing the availability of trained people unless, when they are trained, projects are available for them to work on.

To support such a team at Armstrong Siddeley's it has been necessary to provide expensive research and experimental equipment. This has been done entirely by company finance. Unless work is found to occupy it, we think that it represents a waste of this country's resources.

It is not only the management with whom I have been discussing this matter. The other day I had a letter from the Joint Shop Stewards' Committee at Armstrong Siddeley's. I would like, if I may, to read four short sections of that letter because I think they are important. The company have been developing and producing some very high class products, which has of necessity needed a very highly skilled labour force. We feel that it would be a great pity if these highly skilled people had to be disbanded and dispersed about the country due to some extent to lack of planning on the part of the Government. We have here at Ansty a large modern factory with new drawing offices and test beds, all of which are second to none, and there is still plenty of room for expansion if necessary. The site is particularly suitable for development and research or any high class precision work. Jointly with our Parkside factory we have a skilled labour force of approximately 6,000 workers, plus a large force of technicians, etc. We have been engaged on gas turbine engines, most of them military, for Government use; and we feel that they should now offer us alternative work here at this factory, thus dispensing with the need to disperse the workers to other areas. It has been the policy of Armstrong Siddeley that the works at Coventry, including Ansty and their flight section at Bitteshall, shall be primarily the research and development centre for their organisation where they can combine the facilities which they have built up over the last ten years. The major production arising from this development would be carried out at their production factory at Brockworth, which, as the Minister knows, is a modern production plant employing 3,500 people. We now want to know what is going to happen to them.

In this House on 20th February I asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Minister of Supply … to a delegation from … Blackpool … that he would do his best to find alternative work for the factory of Hawker Aircraft, Blackpool, Ltd., so that the hardship caused by the decline in Service orders for military aircraft might be mitigated, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 429.] The Lord Privy Seal, replying for the Prime Minister, said that that statement had his right hon. Friend's full support. He also said that he would discuss the matter further with his right hon. Friend.

On 20th May, the Minister of Supply said, in answer to a Question, that his responsibility is limited to endeavouring to find alternative defence work and alternative civil work in the aircraft field, and that I will most certainly do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 856.] Might I emphasise the words "alternative civil work in the aircraft field"?

When the Minister replies tonight—and I have had to speak as quickly as I could—I should be glad if he would answer two specific questions, of which I have given him notice. First, what is the future long-term prospect for the aero-engine industry in Coventry? Secondly, what is to be the policy of his Department in research and development work at Armstrong Siddeley Motors? Most important of all, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to take this matter up with the Prime Minister—in other words, the whole question of the loss of technological skill from this country because of this policy. It is in direct contrast to what the Chancellor said in winding up his Budget speech on 15th May.

Would it not be wiser, from the viewpoint not only of Coventry but of the whole country, for the Government to accept the proposal put forward by Armstrong Siddeley in the field of civil aircraft research which I have already mentioned, so that the team which they have built up, which could not be exceeded anywhere in any country whatsoever, may be retained on the skilled work which they know so well and to which they have brought such distinction? It is not a case of whether we can afford the money involved, but rather whether we can afford to have such skill dispersed or lost to other countries. I would say that we cannot lose them. The Chancellor is on record as implying that we should not lose them, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree.

I have raised this problem tonight after a good deal of thought, because the last thing I want to do is to spread despondency in Coventry. But the case of Armstrong Siddeley proves conclusively that these cuts as at present put forward will have a very damaging effect on our prowess, prestige and advance in the new world now developing in civil aviation research. I ask the Minister to see that this problem of these cuts goes before the Prime Minister.

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor)

I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) in this matter as it affects her constituency in Coventry. If I may say so, she has covered a great deal of ground in the minimum of time, and I will try, in the limited time left to me, to reply to the many important points which she has raised.

I regret very much that one of the first firms to suffer from the inevitable effects of the cuts in the defence programme has been a fine firm in the hon. Lady's constituency. I should like, however, to go right back to first principles on this matter. I think I am right in saying that it is common ground between hon. Members in all parts of the House that some streamlining of the defence research and development programme was essential if the country was to remain viable economically. The Report of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Estimates, which was so ably presided over by the hon. Lady herself, recommended That the present military aircraft programme should be critically examined with a view to ensuring that the number of projects is the absolute minimum consistent with security. I am quite sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to deny that important recommendation made by that Sub-Committee.

The need for streamlining the defence programme is underlined by the shortage of science and engineering graduates in this country. The recent Report on Scientific and Engineering Manpower in Great Britain, issued jointly by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, estimated that the number of people qualifying each year in science and engineering would need to increase from about 10,000 in 1954–55 to about 20,000 in 1970, an increase of 100 per cent. The defence programme absorbs a substantial proportion of our slender resources of technical manpower. As an indication of that, I will remind hon. Members that, in 1955–56, about two-thirds of the total estimated expenditure on research and development in this country was devoted to defence work.

It is, of course, true that much of the work done for defence purposes contributes also to advances in the civil field, but it is now, I think, generally recognised that if we are to maintain and improve the economic position of this country, we must have more technically qualified people for civil work.

The Defence White Paper makes several references to the employment of a substantial amount of our scarce technical manpower on defence work, and one of its effects will be to make available some of those skilled men for work in civil industries. That cannot, unfortu- nately, be achieved without some temporary dislocation in the firms and localities immediately affected. That, I am afraid, is inevitable. But, if we are to attain our object, we must face the problem. It would be wrong to run away from it by, for example, attempting to provide alternative defence work whenever a contract was cancelled.

With regard to the particular project to which the hon. Lady has referred, the project for the supersonic bomber, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air made clear, in the course of the debate on the Air Estimates, that there was no longer a requirement for that aircraft. In face of that withdrawal of the requirement, and bearing in mind the very heavy cost of the project—it was estimated that the total cost of development, including the development batch aircraft, development of the engine and other special equipment, would be about £70 million—I am sure that no one would suggest that the Government had any alternative but to cancel all the work on the project, except for such elements as might be common to another project for which there was a continuing requirement. In particular, there is no longer a requirement for the engine which was being developed by Armstrong Siddeley's, and we had reluctantly to cancel that, along with the aircraft.

I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me notice of the two important questions which she raised in her speech. She asked about future prospects for research and development work at Armstrong Siddeley's. Whilst I do not want to minimise in any way the effect on the firm of the cancellation of that engine, I must make clear that the company is still doing substantial research and development work for my Department.

As my right hon. Friend said, in answer to a recent question by the hon. Lady, the firm's expenditure this year on research and development work for the Ministry of Supply will be about two-thirds of that of the previous year, and a good deal of it will, in all probability, continue into the succeeding years. The hon. Lady said that the company had not foreseen this latest development of the cancellation of this important project. Neither had the Ministry of Supply. We had not foreseen it either, and we regret it very much.

The hon. Lady's second question concerned the future of the aero-engine industry in Coventry. Concerning new work, there is at the moment no firm requirement for a new engine either on the civil or on the military side; but as requirements arise, Armstrong Siddeley's, in common with other firms in the aero-engine industry, will have the opportunity of submitting proposals to meet them. The total of new requirements available to the industry as a whole is, however, bound to be less than it has been and I am, therefore, glad to see that the company is actively seeking work in other directions. That is very wise.

Since the end of the war, the British aero-engine industry has been second to none in its success in attracting foreign custom, and it has established an outstanding reputation for the quality of its products. I am sure that the aero-engine industry in Coventry and elsewhere will maintain its vigorous search for export orders. The efforts of Armstrong Siddeley's and Alvis, in conjunction with the airframe manufacturers, have recently met with success in the form of German orders for aircraft and helicopters powered by their engines and there are promising sales prospects for several of the firms' products. My Department plays an active part in assisting those exports and in encouraging the interest of foreign Governments in the industry's products.

The hon. Lady has referred to the effects on technology generally as well as in Coventry in particular. The cancellation of the supersonic bomber will undoubtedly mean that a good deal of knowledge that would have been useful to aviation generally will be lost to us. I should not, however, like anyone to think that we have put a complete stop to work in the supersonic field. That is not so. We are continuing with work on a new and advanced supersonic research aircraft. In addition, in accordance with the decisions in the Defence White Paper, the guided missile programme will be pressed forward, and work on missiles will contribute to the solution of problems in the aircraft field.

It is now public knowledge that the Ministry of Supply, the Airways Corporations and a group of manufacturers are undertaking preliminary studies into the possibilities of developing a supersonic civil transport. Among the firms engaged are both of those—A. V. Roe and Armstrong-Siddeley—most heavily affected by the cancellation of the bomber. We are, at this stage, merely considering a research project to assess development possibilities. If, however, it is established that a supersonic transport is an economic proposition, I am sure everyone would agree that it would be much better to devote our resources to a project such as that rather than to a military project for which the operational requirement has been withdrawn.

The hon. Lady has expressed concern as to whether the arrangements for consultation between my Department and the Ministry of Labour are adequate. I can assure her that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was kept continuously informed of the projects likely to be eliminated from the defence programme and the firms which would be affected. Clearly, no executive action could be taken until decisions had been made and cancellations agreed upon. Since then, however, there have been frequent discussions between the two Departments and, I believe, the local officers of the Ministry of Labour have done all in their power to assist in the redeployment of the workers who have had to be discharged. I have myself discussed these problems with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

I should like to have dealt with the points made by the hon. Lady about emigration, although they are not, of course, particularly the concern of my Department. As there is not time, I should like to say that if the hon. Lady will have a word with me, I will speak to her later about that.

The Question having been proposed at 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 half-past Ten o'clock.