§ 1. Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Labour what discussions have taken place between his Department, the Board of Trade and the supply Departments concerning the special arrangements to be made for workers in the aircraft industry rendered unemployed in Coventry because of cuts in defence orders, in accordance with the undertaking he recently gave.
§ The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. fain Macleod)The Ministry of Supply keeps my Department informed of changes in defence contracts which seem likely to affect aircraft firms 184 in Coventry and elsewhere. It is, however, also important that firms should notify my local offices of any redundancy so that early steps can be taken to help those who have to find other jobs.
§ Miss BurtonDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that— by inadvertence, I am sure— he has not replied to the Question that I put on the Order Paper? I asked him what discussions have taken place. Is he aware that, on 17th April, he gave an undertaking that such discussions would take place, if necessary? What has been done, as regards these aircraft workers in Coventry?
§ Mr. MacleodThat is what I answered. It is not a question of having a formal meeting; these discussions are continuous, and go on all the time. But they have been intensified, in view of anxiety which people had about the effects of the defence cuts. I cannot give a list to the hon. Lady of the number of times officials have met or of the telephone conversations which have taken place, but I do assure her that consultation on this matter is actually continuous.
Mr. LeeIs it not a fact that we are now going through an exceptional period, following the announcement of changes in the arms programme, and can we not have some assurance that, when a certain type of worker becomes redundant, instead of him merely being asked to travel to some other area to get work, an effort will be made to bring work to the worker instead of the worker having to follow the job?
§ Mr. MacleodOne must be quite clear— indeed, it would make nonsense of the whole defence programme otherwise— that there cannot be a guarantee that, if defence contracts are removed, other Government contracts are going to take their place. What one can do is to make certain that labour considerations are taken fully into account in the sort of way that I have indicated to the House, and that there is constant communication between the Ministry of Supply, the other Departments concerned, and my own, to make sure, so far as we can, that these points are covered.
§ 5. Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Armstrong Siddeley Motors, Coventry, are faced with the immediate necessity of 185 reducing their skilled labour force and the supporting office staffs by several hundred people; that, while immediate steps are being taken to find alternative work, the prospects of doing so in time to avoid redundancy are nil; and what steps he has taken to meet this situation.
§ Mr. Iain MacleodI understand that 250 workers have been given notice which is due to expire on 22nd May and that 30 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 obtatin other employment. The prospects of placing them in their own occupations locally or within daily travelling distance are not good, and local offices in other areas are being asked to help supply particulars of vacancies in suitable occupations.
§ Miss BurtonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware, without my asking about telephone conversations, that the numbers involved will be considerably greater than these in the immediate future? Is he also aware that we in Coventry do not think the Government are facing this as a matter of urgency but are showing complacency about it? Has he had any further information from the Ministry of Supply about these numbers?
§ Mr. MacleodThe numbers that I have given are those which have been supplied to me by the firm. The announcement of redundancy was made on 7th May, and I am quite certain that the figures themselves are entirely accurate. Dealing with further provisions, the interviewing of people at the factories is starting today. It is a great help in these cases if one can have enough notice and start interviewing people before the time of the notice runs out.
§ Miss BurtonThis is a very important matter. The Minister said that his Department asks for the longest possible notice from the Ministry of Supply about vacancies which will occur. As I know that there will be considerably more vacancies and as the Ministry of Supply has known that for two months, may I ask when that notice is likely to reach the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
§ Mr. MacleodWith respect, the hon. Lady is confusing different things. The Ministry of Supply and other Departments tell me of the cancellation of orders or 186 alterations in contracts which may conceivably affect employment. That is one thing. But the question how those alterations will affect, if indeed, they do affect, the number of people employed by the firm is a matter for the firm. I always want the longest possible notice from all firms who may have labour changes to announce.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Neil McLean.
§ Mr. Robensrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Robens.
§ Mr. RobensHas the right hon. Gentleman observed from the supplementary questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Newton (Mr. Lee) and Coventry, South (Miss Burton) that there is grave concern about this question of redundancy, arising from reductions in the defence programme? Will he not look once again at what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton mentioned a few moments ago— the provision of work in existing establishments? It is the case, is it not, that there is not the greatest co-operation quickly enough between the Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Labour? Is it not the case that it would be very much better to try to find work where facilities exist for that work than to put the Government and the country to the expense of finding employment for these people away from their homes under the new scales which the Ministry of Labour has recently announced? Does he not think, therefore, that it would be a useful— [HON. MEMBERS:"Ask a Question."] This is a very important question. I will go further, and say that we may have to have a debate on all these issues.
§ Sir W. Anstruther-GrayOn a point of order. Am I not right in thinking, Mr. Speaker, that you called the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean), in whose name the next Question on the Order Paper appears? He did not rise to ask the Question. Is not the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) quite out of order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think so: he hon. and gallant Member must let me be the judge of that. I called Mr. Neil McLean, but he did not rise and my 187 calling was therefore ineffective and a nullity. We were then in the same position as if I had not called him.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's question will be brought to a conclusion.
§ Mr. RobensWe regard this as important, Mr. Speaker, because it affects the livelihood of many thousands of men and women in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We will put a lot of Questions down; will that suit hon. Members better? Would the right hon. Gentleman again consult the appropriate Departments who are responsible for placing orders— the Service Departments — to see whether it would not be possible even at this stage to find additional work in the places where the facilities exist— that is, where there is the capital investment, machinery and everything else?
§ Mr. MacleodIn the first place, I think it is a mistake to exaggerate the employment effects of the defence cuts As I explained in the defence debate, the number whose employment will be affected this year has been considerably less than in preceding years. Consultation on these matters is close. On this particular point, I understand that the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has a Question down to the Ministry of Supply in a few days' time. Clearly one cannot give a guarantee— it would be absurd to do so— that if a Government contract is taken away another will take its place.