HC Deb 24 November 1969 vol 792 cc163-72

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

10.11 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

When I interrupted proceedings on Tuesday, 11th November, I suggested that it was perhaps necessary to discuss this matter on the Adjournment, because it seemed that at the least there was a great deal of confusion surrounding this issue. My impression was that the Leader of the Opposition thought that he had the Government on a hook, and judging what was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite—and I include among them the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—they thought that something dreadful had been happening in Scotland, and that efforts should be made to bring that out.

On examining this question I concluded, before 11th November, that either the Opposition were honest, in which case they were misled, or they were dishonest, in which case they were trying to mislead the people of Scotland. If they have been misled, it is up to us to do what we can to put them right. If they are being dishonest, this should be a useful opportunity to tell the people of Scotland the truth about the situation, and that is one of my purposes tonight.

Another reason for this debate is that I thought then, and I still do, that some measure of blame rested on the Government for not bringing out much more clearly and comprehensively than they have done the true facts of the situation. The facts are there if one searches diligently for them. Searching for them, bringing them out, and forming a comprehensive picture that will show the whole truth are things which quite clearly neither the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Leader of the Opposition has been able to do. I do not altogether blame them, because the facts are difficult to get at, but they are there, and my plea to my hon. Friend tonight is to ensure that there is a regular short summary, but nevertheless a clear description, of the comprehensive picture, rather than a singling out of separate items which few people, because of the little time at their disposal, are able to put together and form a clear picture.

Perhaps one can see from the kind of answers that Ministers give that they themselves do not make the situation clear. For example, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to what causes she ascribes the net loss of jobs in Scotland between December, 1965. and December,1968". He was told in reply: The decrease … in the number of employees … is attributable in large measure to the contraction of some of Scotland's basic industries.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November. 1969; Vol. 790, c. 161.] The reply went on to say that great efforts had been made to create new work but that the losses had been greater than the number of jobs created.

That is part of the truth, but an insufficient part. It does not remove what I consider to be a basic confusion in the minds of many people between unemployment and a reduction in the number of persons employed. The two things mean very much the same to many people, including, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. If we go into this question we appreciate the way in which it can lead to grave misunderstanding. Let us take the period brought out by questioning—from December, 1965, to December, 1968—and consider the breakdown in terms of the loss of jobs or the reduction in the numbers in employment. If we do that we find that in the period in question there was a reduction of about 51,000 in the number of persons available for work and an increase of about 15,000 in the numbers of unemployed. That gives a total of 66,000, which is near enough to the figure of 67,000, if we round off the figures.

What was this 15,000 additional to? The answer is to be found by looking at the date used as the basis for making the comparison—December, 1965. I wonder why the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn selected that date? Why did he not select December, 1964?

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

I can answer the hon. Member. I have had a lot of correspondence with the Department of Employment and Productivity on this matter, as well as having answers to Questions, and in a letter I received it was explained that the system was changed in 1965, and that a comparison could be made only over the three years.

Mr. Lawson

That is fair enough. I thought of that. But the hon. Member must have found it very convenient to start from that date. He could have chosen December, 1964, which would have been a fair date to start from since that was the first December which was completely under the control of a Labour Government. If that year had been chosen the addition would have been only 8,000. If the hon. Member had chosen December, 1963—the last year of Conservative Government—there would have been 12,000 fewer unemployed.

But December, 1965, was the date when the new figures were made operative, and we can easily see that it was very convenient for the hon. Member. That was a time when unemployment was very low. I have worked out a little index which I shall read through quickly, giving the figures for the Decembers from 1963. If the December, 1963, figure is taken as 100, in 1964, it was 79, in 1965, 70.5, which is practically 30 per cent. less than December, 1963; in 1966, it was 83; in 1967, 94, and in 1968, 87.2.

There was an increase between 1965 and 1968 of about 15,000 wholly unemployed—

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

Go back a bit.

Mr. Lawson

I am starting now on the basis of 1965–68. I have looked at the averages for all the years from 1958 and in only three was the average less than 70,000—in 1961, 1965 and 1966.

The situation is very complex when we deal with the reduction in the number of persons available for employment. In the first place, a reduction in the number of employees is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, from 1965–1956 to 1968–1969, the number of persons employed by the two Scottish electricity boards fell by about 2,212 or 10 per cent., yet output has gone up, so there is no question of that reduction being bad. There could indeed be an advantage in some reductions. For instance, over three years, the number of people employed in private domestic service fell by about 6,000, or 30 per cent. I do not want to deny a person a possibility of having a manservant or maidservant, but we could usually employ that manpower more usefully. Also, the number employed in wholesale and retail distribution from 1965 to 1968 fell by more than 27,000 and there can be no doubt that they were usefully employed, but we should be able to employ many of them even more usefully.

There have been steep reductions in the number of employees in certain basic industries and I wonder whether this is necessarily a bad thing. For example, from 1964 to 1968, the number employed in agriculture dropped by about 21,000, in mining by about 20,000 and in distribution by more than 30,000. Those three categories alone represent a loss of 70,000 jobs, but this is not necessarily a loss to Scotland. Much depends on the effective use of the released manpower.

Although the numbers of jobs gained are not so great, there are some useful additions. In engineering and electrical goods over the four years there were about 15,300 gains. In professional and scientific services there were about 32,000, mainly in educational, medical and dental work, but it is a considerable increase. What has been happening in Scotland is a shedding of the badly-paid jobs, those without prospects, and a growth of the better-paid jobs with better prospects. A short piece of evidence is that by April this year the Scottish wage earner had moved up to fourth place in the earnings league of the 10 different regions of Britain. By that time, 23 separate Scottish industries were above the average in the way of earnings.

The basic question which arises out of the White Paper relates to the numbers of people available for employment. The White Paper made a basic error of judgment concerning Scotland in not anticipating that there would be such a rapid rundown of the old basic industries. It forecast a rundown of the old industries during the period to 1970 of 74,000. By 1968, however, the rundown had already reached about 120,000. The White Paper is not really out of line to any degree in terms of the gains. It is, however, out to a considerable degree in terms of the rapidity of the losses. When one considers the nature of the many jobs which have been lost, what they were paying and the prospects they carried, we cannot altogether deplore the fact that there has been a rapid rundown in jobs.

The important point here, however, relates to the people themselves. There has been a disappearance from the labour force of considerable numbers of persons. I have given the figure of something like 51,000 during the period from December, 1965, to December, 1968. That was a rather unusually selective period because there was exceptionally high demand at that time.

The 51,000 can be broken down into 38,000 males and 13,000 females. Females—I use the term in no derogatory sense—can come on to the labour market and disappear from it very easily. When jobs seem readily available, they appear on the labour market; if there is a drying up of jobs, they disappear. To my mind, this would in large measure account for the reduction in the number of women employees between those two dates.

The position concerning males is a serious matter and has continued over many years. Hon. Members, on both sides, will recall that time after time we brought out the question of the constant diminution of the male labout force in Scotland. This situation is still with us but there are, I think, certain bright features.

First, to understand what has been happening over the past two or three years, we should understand that there was a quite severe dip in the birth rate in the early 1950s. In the five years from 1951 to 1955, there was an average reduction each year of 10,000 compared with the previous five years. That makes a substantial difference. That group, which is now coming on to the labour market, is aged 15 to 19 and is a relatively small group. It is down by about 26,000 as compared with its immediate predecessor, the 20 to 24 age group.

Another factor—it is not one which we deplore, but we must keep it in mind—is that increasingly the young people are not coming on to the labour market in the way that they used to do. When I was a boy, they came on to the labour market at the age of 14 or earlier. Later, the age became 15. Increasingly, however, youngsters are staying on at school beyond that age. The figure which I have is that in 1968 there were 24,000 more boys and girls continuing at school than in 1964.

A substantially increased number of people are now engaged in pursuing further education. A substantially increased number of older people, thereby withdrawn from the labour market, are engaged in training as teachers. In 1968 compared with 1964, about 30,000 people in the younger age group have withdrawn from the general body of employees as a whole.

Not only is this the case in the sense that there is a reduction in the number of younger people coming on to the labour market, but there is a reduction in the number of older people in the market as well. Older men seem more ready to retire at 65 than they were formerly. I understand that in 1965 there were 15,000 more men aged 65 and over than there were in 1968, but that there were 5,000 fewer in employment.

These are the characteristics of what has been happening and there is no doubt that the scene is one of far greater prospects, with a growing variety of new jobs. In Lanarkshire, for example, the job scene is very different from the days when it depended largely on coal and steel. In Fifeshire, it is also very different. Scotland is now on a par with what is happening in other parts of the country. If the situation is understood in the sense that, increasingly, men and women are not making themselves available immediately for work but are acquiring skills or retiring earlier, then the problem of contraction in the number of employees becomes very different indeed.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell rose—

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Dr. Mabon.

Dr. Mabon

In view of the short time I have and the fact that this debate was initiated by one of my hon. Friends, in a sense calling the bluff of hon. Members opposite—who have raised the subject many times at Question Time but have never had the guts to get a debate which could be properly answered by a Minister—I must now reply.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for keeping a balanced view of the economic situation in Scotland, since arguments about job losses and gains tend among hon. Members opposite to arrive at the conclusion that the Government's policy in Scotland is wrong. My hon. Friend is right in arguing that one has to look not at one index but at several to see what is happening and to judge whether the Government's policy is the right one. Hon. Members opposite keep contradicting themselves about what is happening and what they intend to do if they are returned to office. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) is one of those who contradicts himself.

Mr. Gordon Campbell rose—

Dr. Mabon

The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech.

The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), for example, says that we are giving too much money for jobs and giving it in the wrong way. But we have never had an explanation from hon. Members opposite as to why our policies are wrong. My job is to answer my hon. Friend's claim that we are conducting the right policies. I have listened before to the arguments of hon. Members opposite who have focussed their attention on one simple index.

In the 1966 White Paper—beyond page 9 of which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) never seems to get—the Government set out a number of aims. Deductions were made of the likely rundown of the old traditional jobs which it was believed would take place. No hon. Member opposite predicted at the time that the estimate of the rundown was wrong. Not one of them can claim to have given a figure of the rundown of jobs showing that it would exceed the figure we claimed was possible in that time. But, even if the Government estimate Was wrong, are hon. Members oppo- site arguing that that rundown should never have taken place—are they arguing, for example, that the prosperity of agriculture should have been endangered by keeping too many men on the land? Are they arguing that coal mines should have been kept on even though they were beyond the economic viability stage? Are they arguing that the railways, with their manpower, should have been sustained as they were in 1964? We say that most of the difficulties of the time—

Mr. MacArthur rose—

Dr. Mabon

No, I cannot give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Dr. Mabon

I have only got eight minutes left. It is becoming a bad habit of Scottish Members not to allow Scottish Ministers a reasonable run. We had it last week, and now we are having it this week.

What I am trying to say is that we have rejected absolutely the Canute doctrine of shoring up old institutions and sustaining dying methods. We have accepted that Scotland's future lies in applying her engineering and technological skills in the present age. As a measure of the magnitude of the job in front of Scotland we can look at the estimates made in the White Paper.

Let us take two of them—job gains and job losses, the subject of this debate. By any forecasting standards, outside those of scientific measurement, and the White Paper did not attempt that, our forecast for job gains was made with quite remarkable accuracy. We are well up to time in this vital sector of the creation of new jobs, and it would do credit to our critics if they would acknowledge this gracefully before going on to comment on job losses. Two years before the end of the period in question in the White Paper we have already marked up 118,000 of the 130,000 jobs set as the target for 1970.

Job losses have been substantially more than anyone, including ourselves, predicted, but the rate of modernisation of our coal mines, our railways, our agriculture, which, as was emphasised to me recently, is the envy of many parts of Europe, has been faster than the most optimistic hoped for. The hon. Gentleman should travel on our railways and see how much they have improved. There have been other economic factors contributing to this change. For example, there has been a lower labour intake into certain industries where, however, wages are high, something I hope to be able to come to later, and where productivity has improved.

Let there be no mistake: this rundown in jobs in our older industries had to come, and the fact that it has come more quickly and that we have been able to sustain it is, in the long run, a matter for optimism rather than the reverse. No one can suppose that any Government of a free country can order affairs so that the rundown of jobs and the creation of new jobs synchronise with complete precision. On occasions we have been able to moderate the rundown in order to ease the transition for the local economy affected. We recognise the unsettling effects of industrial change both on the individual and the local community. Change is not always welcome to people, and may even be resented where there is no choice facing the individual.

Change, however, is part of the integral pattern of economic life, and always has been. Our business is to make it as humane, as smooth, and ultimately as productive both to the country and for the individual as possible. The social measures we have introduced to this end, such as our generous redundancy payments provisions, I need not elaborate on now. Redeployment and retraining have also been important, not only economically but in their social implications in this process of change.

Let us look at some of these indices, apart from the index which we are now discussing. Unemployment in Scotland, under hon. Gentlemen opposite and before, was more than twice the United Kingdom average whether the United Kingdom average was high or low. Today, that ratio is down to 1½, and that is significant in itself.

Migration has always been the bane of Scotland. It has been bad, and it was growing under the party opposite, but it has shown a considerable improvement in the years we have been in office. Net migration in the year ended July, 1969, was 25,000, the lowest figure since 1958–59, and a drop of 22,000 from the high point of 47,000 in 1965–66. Overseas migration shows a drop to 14,000 in 1968–69, which compares with a peak of 29,000 in 1966–67. This cannot be ignored.

Earnings, about which we have been reminded, is another index. It is not just a matter of one job or another but the quality of the job and the earnings must be considered. The wage gap between Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole for adult male workers in manufacturing industry has fallen to 2.4 per cent., which is l1s. 7d., and is the lowest gap we have had for a long time.

My hon. Friend was kind enough to point out that today in Scotland we do not see people coming on to the labour market quite so early. The young are taking full advantage of higher education, and 24,000 more students over the age of 15 are in full-time education. We can also look at the demographic figures. In Scotland we have more older people, and we hope that they will benefit by the new and admirable pensions provisions which we are bringing in, and that older people will retire in the future without the fear that they have to carry on working to the statutory age, but will be able to enjoy life. We should see more of our younger people taking advantage of the extension of the school leaving age and see more full-time education—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.