§ 3 and 4. Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour (1) what reply he will make to the letter to his Department of 23rd June from Newcast Foundries, Silverdale, Newcastle-under-Lyme, concerning the granting of deferment of call-up to ex-apprentices in the machine tool industry and allied industries;
§ (2) why his Department is granting deferments beyond the end of apprenticeships to workers of certain firms in, or supplying, the machine tool industry, and not to workers of others, in cases where the circumstances of shortage of skilled labour are similar.
§ Mr. HeathA small number of ex-apprentices engaged on engineering work of special importance to the export trade, or connected with important defence projects, have been granted extended deferment. Letters have been sent to the firm mentioned by the hon. Member confirming that their ex-apprentices do not qualify under these limited arrangements.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs it not clear that Newcast Foundries, in its letter to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, proved that his Department has been granting block deferments for skilled men in certain firms in the machine tool trade and not to others? This cannot be due to the question of exports, because this firm is supplying certain parts to firms for the purpose of making machine tools for export. All these men are involved in the export trade and their skill is vitally required to maintain production.
§ Mr. HeathThat is not the case. I have read these letters very carefully. The deferments which have been granted have been to firms in the categories I have mentioned in my reply. This firm does not come into those categories. It is a supplier for the machine tool industry, but is not in the machine tool industry itself. The system is well-known and it has been explained to the firm, namely, that a firm requiring exemption of this kind has to be sponsored by a Government Department. This firm is not sponsored by a Government Department and therefore does not qualify. I hope that it will no longer 424 labour under the misapprehension that it is receiving unfair treatment.
§ Mr. SwinglerDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this firm, which, I agree is very small, is supplying firms for the purpose of export orders? While it is perfectly true that it is not itself involved in the export trade, the loss of skilled labour to it means a drag on the firms which it is supplying and they cannot comply with their delivery dates for export orders.
§ Mr. HeathYes, but, because firms qualify for exemption because of their own products, it does not necessarily mean that all their suppliers qualify as well. What I have to have is a sponsorship from another Government Department showing that supplies would be affected because of limitations of suppliers if I did not grant these deferments, and that has not been forthcoming.