HC Deb 21 February 1969 vol 778 cc1038-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

4.5 p.m.

Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullas (Wembley, North)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter concerning the employment of some of my constituents. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment and Productivity, for kindly attending to listen to my case and to reply on behalf of the Government I am especially appreciative that the hon. Gentleman has come at very short notice to take the place of his hon. Friend who is stricken down with 'flu. We sincerely hope that he will be quickly restored to the Front Bench.

My constituency of Wembley, North is mainly residential, but there are several factories and light industry, chiefly in the Edgware district, where the constituencies of some of my colleagues adjoin and, consequently, some of their constituents are concerned. I speak especially of the Boroughs of Harrow and Hendorn.

Although I wish to speak chiefly about the proposed closure of the Rolls-Royce factory in Stag Lane, there have been other closures in recent months which caused concern to me and to my colleagues whose constituents have been similarly affected. During the past year, decisions have concerned the firm of Duple, which has virtually closed and whose works have been moved to the North of England, the Schweppes factory, which has been partially closed, and Mickleover Transport, which has moved out. Other works which nave closed include Meltonian Wren, Everett and Edgcumbe and, at Kingsbury, only half a mile away from Rolls-Royce, Phoenix Telephones, which closed in December, leaving 1,000 men out of employment. To this list must be added the more recent announcement of the proposed closure of the G.E.C./A.E.I, switchgear factory in Neasden Lane, Willesden, where 1,100 employees are likely to be affected. I understand that that is the subject of an Adjournment debate on Friday next by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and, therefore, I will not comment unduly on it.

When the proposed Rolls-Royce closure was announced, I arranged for a deputation of workers to come here to meet me and my colleagues. As a result of the discussions, I wrote with my colleagues a joint letter to the Minister of Technology commenting on the increasing number of factory closures or staff redundancies in the area and expressing our anxiety that Government policies were, in some way, directly or indirectly concerned. We asked whether there was not work within the ambit of the Minister's Department which could be used lo load the factory until such time as full production on the Concorde began. The Minister was not able to help.

In this Rolls-Royce factory, however, 585 workers are affected, of whom 260 are skilled. As is generally known, the factory was originally the De Havilland works before being taken over by Rolls-Royce and it has a long record of excellent work. It also survived the depression of the 1920s and the 1930s to go on to record-breaking production during and after the war.

The union representative at the works claims that the firm has fuller than usual order books, but the management now forecasts that it will be the end of the year before a start can be made on the supersonic jet Olympus 593 engines and mid-1971 before there could be sufficient work to justify the present number employed. The management has also indicated that "slippage" in the Concorde programme might have an adverse effect on the production of the engines.

I am concerned, as are my colleagues, at the general pattern of the closures. We would not for a moment deny the right of a firm to streamline and modernise its business, but I am anxious to know, first, how much Government policy is concerned in this general pattern. I am concerned to have the Minister's view on this increasing number of factories which are closing in this area.

I have no wish to preach party politics in such a desperately serious position and in such a human problem which concerns the security and happiness of so many families; but excessive taxation in various forms, which tends to kill initiative, coupled with the weakening of our defences and the consequent reduction in arms manufacture, are surely contributary factors. I should like to hear the Minister's opinion on this.

I am strengthened by a report which appeared two days ago in the Daily Express, which supports my estimate: Britain's motor industry is feeling the squeeze of Government policies, according to Board of Trade figures released last night. A statement from the Board admits that new registrations of cars were virtually unchanged between 1967 and last year—an unprecedented fact—and that commercial vehicle sales showed only a slight 4 per cent. increase. So I am not alone in thinking that Government policies are a contributary factor.

Secondly, the Government surely must be concerned at the breaking up of skilled teams which have been built up over the years into sound and valuable production units which, once dispersed, may perhaps never again be built up in quite the same manner. This is a really vital argument for keeping skilled teams together whenever possible.

I ask the indulgence of the House for another supporting quotation. The Prime Minister has rightly stressed that we are in an exciting technological age—and we all agree. I wish to quote, in support of the plea that I have made for keeping together specialised teams, the Chairman of the British Aircraft Corporation, Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith, who, only a few days ago, issued a message in which, inter alia, he said: We have claimed, with justice, that we are one of the nation's leaders in many branches of advanced technology, and consequently the spur to progress in many other science-based activities. We are a relatively young and exciting industry; we are in the front line of the country's battle for economic survival and recovery, as well as having a great responsibility in peace as well as in war towards the Defence services. I do not think that it is absurdly romantic to find in these special features of our industry a real source of inspiration…". The chairman goes on, and these are the words I particularly call to the attention of the Minister: It would be absurd to throw away or dissipate the skills, facilities and resources of a comprehensive industrial capability ranging from the production of specialised materials, components and equipment to the aircraft and aero-engines; the Research and Development Establishments such as the R.A.E.; and a system of Higher Education which is attracting and training another generation of aerospace designers and engineers to follow our lead. Surely we all subscribe to those admirable sentiments.

Thirdly, and perhaps the top priority, there is the human aspect—the security of the worker and the consequent happiness and well-being of his family. It is a terrible business to lose a highly skilled and well-paid job with no certainty of comparable work in quick time. Redundancy payments are not enough. Incidentally, I wonder whether the Minister could indicate how the revised redundancy scheme will affect these jobs if it affects them at all.

I know that the Minister, and indeed all Members of Parliament, are deeply conscious of the heart-felt worries of those who know that they are to lose their jobs, their security, and who, if they manage to get another comparable position, may have to dig up all their roots—often of a lifetime—and try to begin again. It can be heart-rending.

I conclude with a quotation from a letter that I have received from a constituent: I have been a resident and taxpayer at Edgware for over 20 years and I wish to add my protest at the intended closure of my place of employment. As you are no doubt aware, at my age of 58 years"— indeed, the average age of all the workers is 45— it will be most difficult for me to obtain similar employment as a clerk/progress chaser who had looked forward to finishing his time with the company, and a small pension. To me there seems to be no future. We are all concerned that such people as my constituents should have a future and assured security not only for their working lives, but for a happy and peaceful tranquillity in the evening of their days

4.15 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)

I rise to add my words to those of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus). About 1,000 engineering workers in my constituency are affected by the closures which have been enumerated. It is difficult, particularly for those over 45, readily to find the type of job to which their skills entitle them.

I ask the Minister to pay attention to two matters. It seems to us in Hendon that the amount of competition coming from the development areas is great, and somewhat unfair. In the case of the A.E.I.-G.E.C. close-down it is believed that it is intended to move the production to Manchester, Stafford, and Rugby, all of which are development areas, and certainly Duple's were forced to close because of the help their competitors were getting in Scarborough, again a development area.

I ask the Government to consider whether the help given to development areas is not a little unfair on those who do not benefit in the same way from taxpayers' money. There is the investment grant, not of 20 per cent. as in the rest of the country, but of 40 per cent. There is the regional employment premium. There is the Selective Employment Tax refund. There are a large number of ways in which the Government are helping the competitors of firms in our area. It will be a pity if this skilled manpower is wasted, if the machine tools are wasted, and if the productive assets of these factories in Hen-don lie idle.

I hope that the Minister will say, not only that his Department and the employment exchanges will do their best to ameliorate the shock, which will be great for a large member of workers, but that he will consider whether the subsidies given to competitors in the development areas are a bit too great, and are thus causing the rundown of productive capacity in the London area, which ought to be used to the hilt.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden (Hertfordshire, South-West)

Rather than interrupt the Minister when he is replying to the debate, I should like to ask two questions now, because some of the workers in these factories live in my constituency. Is the progress of the Concorde likely to be such that these factories may be saved? If not, is not there such a grave shortage of skilled engineers and technicians of this kind that they should be able to find alternative employment near their homes?

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) would not expect me, even if I had come to the debate with rather longer notice than has been the case, to give him an authoritative statement about the future of the Concorde. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will learn of his inquiries, and will respond to them one way or the other. I hope that I am more competent to answer the second question, and I shall try to do that as my speech moves on.

One of the disadvantages from which the Government suffer in answering debates about specific unemployment is that our answers, whether about current or potential unemployment figures, need inevitably to be couched in terms of numbers and percentages. Hon. Members talking about unemployment in their constituencies, in areas of which they have an intimate and personal knowledge, naturally talk in terms of individuals.

Certainly the Government think in terms of individuals, and they have to insist—rightly, I think—that the statistics of unemployment which must be given on such occasions are relevant to individuals. By that I mean the simple fact that the figures for unemployment in, let us say, the South-East, as compared with other parts of the country, reflect the problems that affect individuals; how many individuals are unemployed in, let us say, Wembley and how many are unemployed in the North-East, or the South-West, or the Central belt of Scotland.

Because of that, and understanding very well the natural local claims that Members of Parliament rightly make on behalf of their constituents—understanding that not least because I represent a Birmingham constituency, many members of which feel exactly about development areas as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested it is appropriate to feel—I concede absolutely that the pattern of unemployment in the South-East is and must continue to be affected by Government regional policy. It would be wrong of me to run away from that contention.

Furthermore, unemployment is affected by the natural processes of technological and industrial change which the Government hope not only to facilitate but to advance so that inevitably workers move from old, contracting industries to new, expanding ones. One case was cited if only in passing, by the hon. and gallant Member as a case in which some products once in great demand are now in much less demand, and men are being made redundant because of the natural processes of industrial change.

I return at once to the regional aspects of the question put before us this afternoon, and ask the House and the hon. and gallant Member to consider the position in his constituency in the light of conditions in other parts of the country. Redundancy in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency and potential unemployment in the area have caused major problems for individuals. We hope that some of these problems have in part been mitigated by what the Government offer to the recently unemployed—redundancy payments, earnings-related benefits, and expanded training opportunities, about which I shall say a word in a moment. But I do not deny that for each individual man made unemployed in that part of London or elsewhere there are enormous difficulties, even though the services of my Department are at his disposal to find new and appropriate re-employment immediately he becomes unemployed.

Having said that, I must refer at last to the figures which put unemployment in the area into perspective. In the Greater London area on 10th February there was a figure of abouqt 1.5 per cent. unemployment. In Great Britain as a whole the figure was 2.5 per cent. The latest figures that we have available for the development areas—for January rather than February—give an unemployment figure of 4.5 per cent. The House will therefore understand why the Government are not attracted by the proposition that the development areas have received a rather disproportionate share of Government assistance. In fact, compared with the area under discussion this afternoon the development areas have three times as much unemployment.

Whilst unemployment there goes on at that intolerably high level the Government cannot believe that the assistance they provide to development areas to stimulate their employment prospects is too great. It would be wrong of me to say anything other than that the Government believe it right to encourage companies to expand in the development areas, if necessary at the expense of the type of constituency that both the hon. Member and I represent.

It would be wrong of me to run away from that, not least because if we examine the situation in areas like the hon. Gentleman's or mine, we discover that unemployment of the sort that we have discussed, causing as it does concern and hardship to individuals, is nevertheless something which the area is equipped to meet. I give an example which, I hope, will confirm what I mean. Rather more than a year ago this House, very rightly, was concerned at redundancies in another part of the South-East, in Woolwich. At that time there were vast redundancies and 4,700 men were laid off as the result of the closure of a major factory.

The sort of sentiments we have heard expressed this afternoon were expressed then about that area, and if I may say so in rather less temperate terms than today. The House will be glad to know that of those 4,700 men made redundant, virtually all are now in employment, because of the unique employment opportunities that the Greater London area provides. It provides this because of the diversity of industries within the area, the majority of which are expanding, and because most of those industries are in daily travelling distance of any area suffering specific redundancy.

There is really no reason to assume that what happened in Woolwich 18 months ago will not happen in Wembley, should the proposed redundancies occur. This is particularly so if one looks at the position in Wembley and the five adjacent employment exchange areas over the last year. The latest count in those six employment exchange areas shows that rather more than 5,000 men and women were unemployed. That is a decrease of over 1,000 on the figures for February of last year—a decrease of 22 per cent.

It is a decrease which, I hope, confirms to the House that this is an area of potentially buoyant employment, in which a limited number of unemployed men can easily be absorbed into the working population, and for whom the services of my Department are readily available, to make sure that that absorption comes about.

In both of the major cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, G.E.C. at Willesden and Rolls-Royce, the position remains far from clear. The consultations which the Government expect to take place, and believe will take place, between the companies and the trade unions about the phasing and timing of the redundancy—indeed in one case about the extent of the redundancy—have not yet taken place. We have no doubt that both companies will want to enter into such negotiations, and as a result, the timing, phasing and size of the redundancies will be arrived at in such a way as to give my Department the maximum co-operation in re-employing the men.

I want to say a word about the training facilities available for these redundant men, who may need them. The Perivale training centre is nearby and available, It has 239 places; by the end of this year there will be almost 350, representing a capacity to train almost 500 men each year. The West London Government Training Centre, work on which is beginning shortly, will have some training places ready before the end of 1969. For the redundant men who leave either of the two factories drawn to my attention, or who are redundant as a result of other closures, there will be ample training facilities available.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's specific point, redundancy payments will be available at exactly the same rate as was current before the present Bill was presented to the House. On the assumption that the Bill becomes law—while their Lordships have given it a Second Reading, it has not yet gone through the other place—there will be no question about the Bill including provision for redundancy pay to be reduced. Entitlement will be as it always was since the parent measure was introduced in 1965. But the Government concede without hesitation that any redundancy causes hardship, concern, and anxiety for individual redundant men. We are saying that in the area to which the hon. Member drew attention there is every reason to hope and believe that the redundant men will be readily absorbed into employment.

The Government also accept that part of the pattern of redundancies in the South-East—perhaps not in these two specific examples of Rolls-Royce and G.E.C. but in other cases which the hon. Member did not quote but might have quoted—arises from the fact that the Government's regional policy is responsible for the movement from areas such as that which he represents and I represent into areas of traditionally high unemployment. But that is, and remains, the Government's policy of making sure that the imbalance of employment opportunities, the ratio of three to one in unemployment figures in favour of the Midlands and the South-East, is in some way remedied.

It is their belief that these people who see how readily available employment opportunities are in the South-East will understand our obligation to provide incentives for more employment in those areas in which there has been much higher unemployment, not only during the last year but for the last half-century. The Government insist that in their employment policy a remedy of this situation must be their first priority.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.