§ 11.53 p.m.
§ Mr. William Molloy (Ealing)The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be aware that over the past two years I have raised the question of industrial undertakings leaving the West Middlesex area in general and the Ealing area in particular. In my view the evidence that I have submitted from time to time about firms leaving the area has not been taken sufficiently seriously, with the result that in recent weeks we have begun to hear hon. Members who represent London constituencies expressing their concern about the growing number of jobless people in the Greater London area.
There is a feeling of grave apprehension in the West Middlesex area, especially in the boroughs of Ealing, Hillingdon, Brent and Hounslow. I know that the Minister will produce figures showing that there does not seem to be any great degree of unemployment, that there are plenty of jobs available, and that the situation is not as bad as some have been saying in the past two years. But the evidence is overwhelming, and I plead with the hon. Gentleman to recognise the situation which is developing in the West Middlesex area.
In the past two years no fewer than 20 firms have left the area, most of them light engineering establishments. This has caused a great deal of upset in the community in general and in all aspects of community life in the London borough of Ealing and in the neighbouring boroughs to which I have referred. Only recently, the Tory-controlled Greater London Council made an appeal to the Government to take seriously this very dangerous development of industrial undertakings leaving the West Middlesex area in particular.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)Is my hon. Friend aware that the GLC has not only expressed concern but has asked to see the Secretary of State? At a meeting on 27th February, it asked the Secretary of State
… to receive a deputation of members … which would express the Councils concern at the excessive rate of industrial decline in London and press for action …1267 Is my hon. Friend aware that 198 acres in the borough which used to hold industry hace lost it over the last five years?
§ Mr. MolloyThat is the whole point. The Government seem to be undisturbed, because the statistics suit their argument. I am talking not about statistics but about people—about skilled craftsmen and their families. That is much more important than trying to square numbers and statistics. We are talking of people and communities, and the contribution they can make to their boroughs and to the country.
Only last week, the regional organiser of the Amalagamated Union of Engineering Workers received a letter telling him that yet another firm in my constituency was moving out. Let us, therefore, not hear from the Under-secretary of State the argument about figures of unemployment and underemployment and so on. I ask him, in conjunction with the trade unions, the borough councillors and the Tory-controlled GLC, to take serious cognisance of this dangerous development of industrial undertakings moving from the West Middlesex area.
There are industrialists who say that they need labour in the area and cannot get it. On the other hand, trade unions are expressing concern at the growth in the number of jobless in Ealing and the West Middlesex area. It may well be that they are both stating the truth as they see it. Very often, when a light engineering firm moves out to another part of the country a skilled artisan, such as an engineer or lathe operator, or a fitter and turner, does not feel that he can pick up his roots and go with it. For example, he may have a mortgage only half paid off. The alternative, for him, is to find other employment locally. There is alternative employment, but, as one man put it to me, "I am not enamoured, as a skilled engineer, of becoming a janitor or doorman". Such a man feels it an affront to his skill that he should be offered such alternative employment as well as a serious drop in his standard of living—because it does not provide the same level of remuneration.
This argument can also be applied to women, many of whom have become 1268 unemployed because firms have moved out of the area. I could give examples of women who are skilled electronic workers but who are now unemployed. Of course, there is also alternative work for them—as lavatory cleaners and charladies. But, having trained to become, and having used their intelligence as, skilled electronic workers, they, too, are not particularly enamoured of a drop in their standard of living in such jobs as they are being offered. I say nothing in denigration of charladies. They are important people. But when a trained man or woman who has worked for a firm for 20 years as a skilled artisan has to take an unskilled job because his firm moves away it is an affront to his dignity.
The movement of industry out of the West Middlesex area is a matter of serious concern. In my constituency is situated the Perivale Industrial Estate, which was designed in the late 1930s. The industrialists find that they cannot expand. We get the worst of both worlds. The industrialists who want to expand cannot do so, and have to move out of the area.
When men aged between 45 and 50 are asked to pull up their roots and move to another part of the country it causes a family crisis. Most people like to live near their jobs. They do not want to be harassed by travelling to and from work. The Prime Minister, on leaving this workshop a few months ago, was irritated because he could not quickly get to No. 10 Downing Street. The same applies to the working man. It is no proper life for a man to be with his family only at weekends. What is good enough for the Prime Minister is good enough for the working men in my constituency. They have a right to ask that firms should stay in their area.
In the cold, analytical language of the statistician, a firm decides to move out of the area and employees are rendered redundant. But this means a man losing his job, having to tell his wife, having to discuss with her how to pay off the mortgage, how to find enough money to clothe the children, and how little Johnnie is to become an apprentice. Statisticians do not know about those things. We must not become a nation ruled by statisticians who regard people as numbers. I am reminded of the vulgar attitude of some Army officers, who refer 1269 to other ranks as "bods" and do not realise that they are husbands. fathers and brothers.
The Rockware Company in my constituency has a first-class productivity record and has had no industrial confrontations. The shareholders have been happy because the increased productivity has meant a better return on their money. In return, the skilled workmen have received increased wages and have had nothing much to worry about. But because of the possibility of nefarious action by share strippers the company has had to consider how it can avoid being stripped.
It has decided that if it gets out of Ealing and sells the land on which the factory stands to developers it can make the equivalent of two decades' profit on its present output. But the nation has lost all the skilled work of the men who produce milk bottles, glass pipettes for hospitals, and so on. These men have devoted their working lives to what they thought was a good firm. Indeed, even middle management has been outraged by the company's attitude.
This kind of attitude is growing all over London. I wonder what would be said if a firm to which I have referred were involved in some very important part of Britain's defence. Would we allow the land developers and the share strippers to come in and close a factory that was making a vital contribution to the Royal Air Force, the Navy, or the Army? Of course not. It would be a grave mistake to assume that ordinary working men do not pose these arguments to themselves. The manner in which this operation was carried out was disgraceful.
The Minister for Industrial Development wrote to me about this matter. In his letter he said:
Because of the urgency of the decision to close it was concluded that no prior consultation with the company's employees, as recommended by paragraph 44 of the Industrial Relations Code of Practice was possible.The decision to close this factory was made three months after I had toured it and been told that the company hoped to enlarge it. Indeed, school leavers had been encouraged to start work with the company.1270 What reply can we give to workmen when they ask: who can we trust? A strike or some other form of confrontation always hits the headlines. The Government are prepared to bash the trade unions at any time. Will they now have the guts and the courage to tell this firm that its reprehensible behaviour will not be tolerated? When it comes to applying the industrial relations code of practice to the employers, what do we find? All is forgiven, irrespective of how appalling the decision might be.
This aspect was quoted by The Times and the Financial Times. I recommend the Minister to read what is said in those newspapers, because they can hardly be described as extreme. Their comments about the Rockware incident show that they are as apprehensive as the rest of us. Such appalling behaviour should be halted.
The borough councils of Ealing, Hounslow and Hillingdon, the chambers of commerce and the local Members of Parliament, because of this grievous situation, which is getting worse every day, want to set up consultative machinery to examine the social effects of closures and job availability. They ask whether the Minister will be prepared to assist them in setting up this consultative machinery to examine all the problems that arise when it is inevitable that firms will leave the area, and to see what can be done to ease the situation. When this request is put to him I hope that the Minister will give it the attention that it deserves. We must make it clear that we cannot go along with this dangerous and evil philosophy of putting profit before people.
The London borough of Ealing is in danger of limping on one foot. Working people in Ealing and West Middlesex wish to contribute, with their skills and abilities, to the welfare of their borough and country. Parliament must help to remove this threat to their livelihoods. By so doing it will make a tremendous contribution to West Middlesex in particular and help to preserve the skills of our artisans, of which we are so proud.
§ 12.10 a.m
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) for raising this matter. It is fair to point out that 1271 he has pursued his case—not that I agree with it entirely—assiduously and for a long time. The hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine are almost adjacent to each other, so I have an interest in this matter. Perhaps he will allow me to say that as a Minister I probably have made more ministerial visits to the various regions than any other Minister. I have had an opportunity to consider unemployment on a national basis. It is in that context that we must consider the problem.
The hon. Gentleman expresses a dislike for statistics. He reminds me of the man who was happy to use statistics and welcomed them if they supported his case, but condemned them if they did not. I shall have to use some statistics, as that is the only way in which the House can judge the position.
My Department and I will certainly give careful and sympathetic consideration to any proposals that come from the group to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We will consider carefully proposals and suggestions made by the GLC. It is our desire to work and discuss as much as possible with all bodies, to resolve the matter.
I shall first make a brief general observation. We probably all agree that industrial expansion is necessary to the economic survival of this country and that all should be done to encourage industry to compete in the new and expanding markets now available. I am confident that British industry will seize these wider markets.
Wider markets also bring increased competition, and the United Kingdom industry generally is in the throes of reorganisation to improve efficiency and to make its prices competitive. This reorganisation entails the restructuring of certain industries, like steel, and the nationalisation of others. The latter may take a number of forms, and is dependent solely on the commercial judgment of each company
The Government do not seek to influence the judgment of any company in the private sector in this respect, save in the capacity of protecting public money where it is invested. They do, however, supply one of the factors on which these judgments are taken. I refer to the Govern- 1272 ment's regional industrial policy, with which the House is familiar. In the sense that this ensures industrial growth in the less fortunate areas of the country, I cannot pretend that the Government find such decisions unwelcome, but I must emphasise that the Government aim is expansion of new industries in these areas rather than the attraction of existing industry from the non-assisted areas.
It is sometimes suggested that there is a disincentive to invest or expand in the non-assisted areas such as the South-East. That I do not believe to be true. The new 100 per cent. free depreciation allowance and the 40 per cent. initial allowance for industrial buildings represent for the first time an incentive to industry to invest throughout the country and not just in the assisted areas. It is not generally realised that in a non-assisted area such as West Middlesex a manufacturer can recover, in net present value terms, 32 per cent. of his outlay on plant and machinery and buildings for a typical industrial project. This is almost the best-ever incentive that has been available.
We stand by the policy which we have expressed on the issue of industrial development certificates on several occasions. They are no longer required in the development areas for new projects with an area of less than 15,000 square feet, or 10,000 square feet in the South-East. When we took office the limit was 3,000 square feet. We have adopted a much more flexible policy. For existing factory premises no certificate is required. Where the project is judged to be mobile —that is, equally capable of being sited viably in an assisted area—a certificate is normally withheld unless there are other overriding considerations. But where an application concerns modernisation or expansion of existing plant which is not readily capable of transfer, a certificate is usually granted. In practice, 90 per cent. of IDC applications, in terms of jobs involved, were approved in 1972 and the first two months of 1973. In the years 1968 and 1969, the comparable figure was 80 per cent. During last year and the first two months of this year a total of 49 projects were approved, and in the West Middlesex area there were only five refusals during this time.
I must now refer to the case of Rockware Glass. The group involved owns 1273 five factories—one at Greenford, two in Yorkshire, one in Lancashire and one in Irvine, in Scotland. The staff number 7,700, of whom 1,266 are employed at Greenford on the manufacture of glass bottles. This last activity has been under review by the company for some time, in view of increasing competition from containers made in other materials, but a decision was deferred when productivity at the factory improved after discussions with the unions involved.
Unfortunately, another development occurred which made a decision imperative without prior consultation with the unions. The company decided to act in the common interest of the shareholders and the employees at its other four factories by closing the factory at Greenford and transferring the work to its other factories. The company says that it regrets that it was unable to discuss the decision with representatives of employees at the Greenford factory in accordance with paragraphs 44–46 of the Government's code of industrial relations practice, but it says that publicity would have frustrated its effort. I regret, too, that it was unable to do so, and I hope that the principles laid down in this code will be followed by other firms which may find themselves in a similar position, because they are a fundamental basis for good industrial relations.
I am glad to learn, however, that the company is discussing with the unions the phased rundown of the factory, which is due for closure by early 1974. I believe that, when it first announced the closure in January, the company said that supplementary payments over and above those due under the Redundancy Payments Act would be made to employees affected. It has now offered substantial improvements on the supplementary payments originally envisaged, and these are under discussion with the workers.
The company also says that it is prepared to discuss alternative uses for the site with local councils and other interested parties, and a meeting is to be held on 5th April, under the chairmanship of the Mayor of Ealing.
The Government will do all that they can to alleviate hardship, although I do not think that hardship will be as widespread in the area as some people have suggested. There are currently, in March, 1274 60,644 unfilled vacancies in the Greater London area, including West Middlesex, compared with 67,277 registered unemployed.
§ Mr. MolloyI cannot allow the Minister to make this reference to the company not adhering to the code of industrial relations practice because it might have frustrated its efforts. What about the frustration of those who cannot get work and their families? What if a union said, "We cannot give notice of a strike because it might frustrate our endeavours."?
§ Mr. GrantI have said that I regret that the code was not followed.
I was about to say that the West Middlesex figures are even more dramatic. The number of unemployed in March was 5,409, and unfilled vacancies numbered 8,276, so the area is enjoying the same downward trend in unemployment that is shown nationally. I believe that this will continue and that the vacancies are only the tip of the iceberg. One sees evidence of this in the local papers which circulate in the area. In the Middlesex County Times this week there were 10 pages of advertisements for situations vacant, the Middlesex Advertiser had 10 pages, the Middlesex Chronicle 11 pages, and the Harrow Observer 13 pages. These were not for the sort of menial jobs to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
If, in the exception, some workers find themselves unfitted for work in their immediate vacinity—and I accept that this is sometimes a difficulty—they will have the opportunity of training for fresh skills, currently in demand, at Government training centres at Perivale and Twickenham, which together have more than 500 places. It is worth noting that of the 3,000 additional places planned for the whole country, more than 500 will be in London alone, which, in the circumstances, I do not think is a bad allocation. About 450 places are currently filled, but another 300 places will be made available at these centres during the next few months, and there will be a general expansion of training under the special Training Opportunity Scheme.
I understand that engineering places at the centres are fairly easily available and that under the scheme training facilities are available at employers' establishments and colleges of further education in a 1275 wide variety of subjects at all levels, from the semi-skilled right up to managerial level. These include training in the technical, clerical and commercial fields, and the centres are within reasonable travelling distance of Greenford. This is very important. The Training Opportunity Scheme is aimed at preparing individuals— including those made redundant—for new employment, and the Department of Employment is ready to discuss personal problems at its local offices.
It is sometimes suggested that hardship is caused through the replacement of manufacturing firms by others in the service industries. As at October, 1972, the latest date for which details are available in the GLC area, the hourly rate of earnings of manual workers aged 21 and over in all categories of industries was 83.35p—the highest in the country with the exception of the West Midlands. I do not believe that London is badly placed in that respect.
The local offices of the Department of Employment stand ready with their full range of services, including a computer- 1276 ised "job bank", to assist all those who may be looking for jobs to secure suitable work. Both in West London and in the wider travel-to-work area the number and range of vacancies, including skilled jobs have never been greater. This represents a uniquely favourable situation, in contrast to most other parts of the country.
This is not a complacent answer. This is a thoroughly realistic reply from a Minister who, if I may say so, has constituency interests in this area, who understands only too well the problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but who is also able to see the overall picture throughout the country. In that context I must tell the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that here is now probably a better opportunity for them—albeit they will have to change—than ever before.
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening 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 twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.