14.
asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he proposes to take to ensure that the policy of regional grants ceases to discriminate against the West Midlands.
The West Midlands contnues to benefit from national schemes of selective assistance and through the National Enterprise Board. For example, under the ferrous foundry industry scheme more than £20 million—more than 25 per cent. of aid under this scheme—has been offered to firms in the West Midlands, although the region's proportion of the working population is below 10 per cent. In addition, the region has derived considerable benefit from public funds committed to British Leyland, Alfred Herbert, Chrysler UK and Meriden. Though the worldwide recession has affected all parts of the country, including the West Midlands, the regions of greatest need ought to have special financial help.
Is the Minister aware that through the pursuit of discriminatory regional grant policies and industrial development certificate policies about which his colleague was eulogising earlier, the West Midlands has been economically strangled?
I totally reject the claims which the hon. Gentleman and others in the West Midlands make. But for the actions of the Government, the West Midlands would be an industrial desert. In fact, the West Midlands has received substantial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. In Coventry almost one in five of the workers owe their jobs to the National Enterprise Board and its injections of public money—money which is coming very much under a question mark as a result of some Conservative Members.
Under the Government's special employment measures more than 70,000 people, of whom 19,000 were young people, have been assisted in the West Midlands. Almost £1 billion has gone to British Leyland, Chrysler UK, Alfred Herbert and Meriden. I find it surprising that Conservative Members, who are always complaining about the expenditure of public money on those firms, never praise the Government when money goes to their regions. I presume that the hon. Gentleman wants more money to go to the West Midlands, in which case he ought to make his position clear with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I made the point about the special financial assistance, and I assume the hon. Gentleman is gratified that in the West Midlands unemployment is 6·1 per cent. compared with 9·4 per cent. on Tyneside, 12.2 per cent. on Merseyside and 8·1 per cent. in Scotland.Will my hon. Friend confirm that marked and adverse discrimination against the West Midlands is carried out by the institutions of the Common Market, which nevertheless publicise and propagandise each piddling little sum of money unwillingly forked out in return for the colossal sums of money forked out by the British taxpayer to them?
My hon. Friend has raised the point that there is a net deficit on our payments with the Common Market. It is true that the Common Market advertises all the money which it gives for regional assistance. My hon. Friend has made the point that what we as a Government ought to do is to emphasise more and more—if we had even a half-way sympathetic media we would get some of this publicity—that money spent by the Government is saving and generating thousands of jobs and that if ever the Tories got anywhere near power thousands of jobs would be jeopardised.
Does the Minister agree that the Government's actions are discriminating against the establishment of new industry in the West Midlands? If everything is as rosy as he suggests, why was it necessary for the West Midlands county council to submit a report entitled "Time for Action"?
Remember what it said about the Common Market, too.
I do not want to give an impression of complacency. What I want to do is to refute the extremely unfair criticisms which have been made by Conservative Members. Of course we are not complacent about a level of unemployment of 6·1 per cent. However, people on Merseyside, with a level of unemployment of over 12 per cent., are presumably also very much concerned about what happens. Since January 1976, about 722 IDCs have been issued and none refused. Therefore, the question of a deterrent for new industry does not measure up to anything like the sort of claims made by Conservative Members.
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of square footage granted by the Government to the West Midlands by way of industrial development certificates has been enormous compared with the amount granted during the time of the previous Conservative Government? Is not the case put forward by Opposition Members refuted by the fact that my hon. Friend has just confirmed that not one request for an IDC in the West Midlands has been refused since 1974?
IDCs which have been granted since 1976 should give rise to more than 34,000 jobs when the industries involved move there. Industrial development certificates do not of themselves produce jobs. It is the manufacturing activity which follows which does that. There has been a generous attitude on the part of the Government who, contrary to the actions of previous Governments, have raised the exemption limit for IDCs.
Does the Minister accept that although no IDCs are being rejected a number of applications are withdrawn after heavy advice from the Department? Are not many would-be investors deterred by the need to seek IDC permission before making investments? As the Minister appears to have noticed that the West Midlands is in a depressed state industrially, does he not think that the time has come for a further raising of the threshold for IDC control?
The hon. Gentleman's views are entirely speculative. If he has any evidence whatever that representatives of the Department of Industry have been rejecting applications for IDCs or intimidating people so that they do not apply for the certificates I should be grateful if he would let us know, rather than make such highly speculative remarks. We shall look at whatever evidence he gives to us.