House Of Commons
Monday 21 January 1980
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table.
Prayers
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Oral Answers To Questions
Wales
Unemployed Persons
1.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were out of work in Wales at the most recent count; and how this compares with the figures in February 1974 and May 1979.
I do not know whether it is in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should like to wish Mr. Speaker a speedy recovery from his illness.
In answer to the question, the figure at 6 December 1979 was 85,177, compared with 38,424 in February 1974 and 83,024 in May 1979.Does not my right hon. Friend think that those figures reflect badly on the previous Labour Government? Why does he think that unemployment in Wales more than doubled when the Labour Government were in office?
It is, of course, true that unemployment under the previous Government went up from 38,000 to a peak of 101,000. It therefore ill behoves Labour Members to give lectures on the subject of unemployment.
Does not the Secretary of State fear that the latest figure will double as a result of what is happening in the Welsh economy, with the rundown of steel and the consequent likelihood of a closure of as many as 22 collieries, the withdrawal of active regional policy and the general collapse of employment in all directions?
As I indicated in my first speech from the Government Dispatch Box, when we came into Government the underlying trend of unemployment was rising. At a time of world recession and economic difficulty, there is a likelihood that unemployment figures will rise, but I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that there has been an abandonment of regional policy. There is an effective regional policy being concentrated on the areas in greatest need.
Since the right hon. Gentleman deplores the increase in unemployment under the previous Administration, will he give a categorical assurance that he will not allow the levels under the present Administration to exceed those reached under the previous Government? Will he tell us whether, in relation to the Inmos project, which could possibly have come to Cardiff—which was one of the three short-listed sites—he was consulted and agreed to the National Enterprise Board being released from the commitment that it gave to me that the production unit would go to an assisted area?
I would not be so foolish as to make firm forecasts about future unemployment trends. I do not intend to follow the example of my predecessor, who told us week after week that the situation was being transformed for the better when, all the time, unemployment was rising. As to the Inmos project, no Government decision has been made on that matter.
:Is it not a fact that, although the underlying trend of unemployment may have been upwards when the Conservative Party came to power, everything that it has done since, whether in terms of regional policy, steel, coal, the high exchange rate or high interest rates, conspires to make the position worse?
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks on regional policy. We are concentrating help where it is most needed. The interest rates and many of the economic difficulties from which we are suffering arise from the excessive spending of our predecessors and their failure to take necessary action when the time for it was ripe.
:Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps doubtful whether the Inmos project will succeed anyway, but that it will almost certainly fail if its location is determined by regional policy or political reasons?
I make no comment about the likely success of the project, but there are extremely attractive indus- trial sites in the region, and if the project can succeed anywhere there is no reason why it should not succeed on those sites.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he will concentrate regional aid in areas that most need it when, within a short period, each area of Wales will, thanks to the actions of his Government, have an equal need for help?
I do not accept that that is so. There are areas with problems that have been, and always will be, greater than those elsewhere. We have always said that we will look at the allocation of development and special development areas as the situation changed. We shall reconsider those areas as the situation changes.
Regarding the very serious phenomenon of unemployment and the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to combat it, which so far have not been very good, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the Deeside area, which is expected to cope with a very serious potential set of unemployment figures in the years ahead, it is generally believed that the £15 million package which he announced last year is now insufficient? Will he consider doubling it to £30 million?
:The hon. Gentleman should not try to give only part of the picture in pretending that all we are doing is spending £15 million on Deeside. I announced that we would be spending £13 million on Deeside in the first year and that that spending programme would continue to develop in subsequent years. There are very attractive sites on Deeside. There are good communications. The labour force has a good reputation. I believe that it is an extremely attractive industrial area.
Tourist Industry
2.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for further stimulating the tourist industry in Wales.
The tourist industry makes an important contribution towards the economy of Wales. The Welsh Office and the Wales Tourist Board keep under constant review the most effective use of the available resources.
I welcome my hon. Friend's confidence in the tourist trade and his acknowledgment that it is a major contributor to the Welsh economy. But, although I recognise that the Beavis committee came down against compulsory registration in the tourist trade, will my hon. Friend accept that it is extremely worrying that, for instance, whereas it is estimated that some4,000 farm houses participate in the tourist trade, only 1,400 of them are registered? Will my hon. Friend pay close attention to encouraging more registrations so that the tourist trade can be yet more effective in the economy of Wales?
I understand that Professor Beavis's working party on the registration of tourist accommodation recently completed its review, and I await the Wales Tourist Board's comments on its conclusions, which are, I believe, favourable to the continuation of registration on a voluntary basis. But any moves further to assist and encourage the scheme of voluntary registration must await our consideration of Professor Beavis's findings.
In view of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to tourism, can he say what reduction he has made in the budget of the Wales Tourist Board for the coming financial year?
Subject to the approval of Parliament. I expect the grant-in-aid to remain at this year's level in real terms. The allocation for assistance to tourist projects has been cut by £200,000. But, after allowing for inflation, the amount will be probably a little less than this years allocation of £1·716 million.
Is my hon. Friend aware that in Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the cost of hotel bedrooms is excessive compared with that in France, which has greater overheads and higher food costs? Will he look into this and consider how the French have made such a magnificent achievement in keeping down the cost of hotel bedrooms and, indeed, the cost of meals by having compulsory fixed-charge meals at all establishments?
I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted by the Wales Tourist Board. I shall certainly draw what he said to its attention and to the attention of other bodies connected with hotels and catering.
Has the Minister considered the adverse effect of the latest outbreak of arson on the part of nationalists in Wales on the future of tourism in Wales and the fact that many tourists will be put off coming to Wales? What does he propose to do about it?
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know very well that the firing of homes is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right that it may have a very adverse effect on the tourist trade. It is, of course, to be deplored by all of us in this House and outside in Wales.
Trades Union Congress
3.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales when next he expects to meet the secretary-general of the Wales Trades Union Congress.
12.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales when last he met the Wales Trades Union Congress; and when he proposes to meet it again.
I have met the Wales TUC a number of times since I took office, and I hope to continue this practice. I last met it on 29 October, when it met the Prime Minister.
When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. George Wright, will he draw his attention to the remarkable results of a poll published in The Times today which indicates that the overwhelming majority of trade unionists support totally the Government's proposals to amend the trade union legislation'? Therefore, will he ask Mr. George Wright by what conceivable right he considers that he can use the trade union movement in Wales to batter the Government's policies?
I am sure that Mr. George Wright will note both the poll and my hon. Friend's remarks. It is quite clear that, if the trade union movement in Wales takes that action, it will have a damaging effect on business and, therefore, on job prospects in Wales.
When the Secretary of State next meets the Wales TUC, perhaps he will take the opportunity to explain both to Mr. George Wright and to the overwhelming number of trade unionists in Wales the benefits which have accrued to Wales as a consequence of the Government's policies: first, in eroding regional policies seriously; secondly, in closing skillcentres; thirdly, in cutting the WDA budget by about 30 per cent.; and now proposing to axe savagely the steel and coal industries and those industries which supply them. Does he not realise, therefore, that the Wales TUC and the people of Wales make two demands: a reversal of present Government policies and action to prevent the de-industrialisation of South Wales?
If we are to prevent the de-industrialisation of South Wales—indeed, of Britain as a whole—industry must be competitive and be manned at the levels of our competitors overseas. It does no service to British industry to think that we can put off the day when these necessary and difficult decisions have to be taken. There is very good evidence forthinking—and much of it was presented during the broadcast in which the right hon. Gentleman took part last week—that, because other countries have acted quicker to face the changes in the industrial pattern, their steel in-industries are now stronger than ours and better able to face the challenge of the future.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it does not take opinion polls in The Times or anywhere else to prove that 100 per cent. of trade unionists and all other workers like to have jobs? When the right hon. Gentleman sees Mr. Wright, if he does at some time in the future—assuming that Mr. Wright is willing to see him after the conduct of his disastrous policy—will he take note of the fact that, as a result of his Government's intervention in the steel industry by insisting on stringent cash limits and unrealistic break-even dates, the impact on the Welsh economy could be the loss of as many as 30,000 or 35,000 jobs and prove him and his Government to be the most disastrous in any post-war year and for considerable years before that in adopting a policy of conscious industrial destruction?
The hon. Gentleman says that he and others are good judges of what are the views of trade union members. I note that the trade unions did not seek to obtain the views of their members before launching into their present strike, which undoubtedly is doing great damage to the South Wales economy. We know of at least one industrial company, which already has cancelled its planned investment programme because of that strike. The situation which confronts the British steel industry, its management and its unions—and I am now answering it—is that they have to organise their steel industry so that it can compete in a competitive world.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the company to which he refers would have gone ahead with its project months ago had he not altered his regional policy and made it necessary to renegotiate the package? Can the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that that company has one of the best industrial relations records in Wales? Is he aware, further, that the American management had indicated prior to Christmas that it was considering cancelling the project because of the downturn in the British economy?
I can confirm that under the new criteria we were able to produce selective financial assistance, which would have enabled that project to go ahead. I am aware also that the management of that project has said that its reason for not going ahead is the present industrial chaos and the strikes taking place in Wales.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. George Wright has forecast over the weekend that there will be a 50 per cent. increase in unemployment in Wales? If he is aware of the prediction by Mr. Wright, one of the leaders of the trade union movement in Wales, what are his plans to try to reduce the number of unemployed in Wales that we know will be forecast in the next two months?
On the one hand, it must be right that the country gets its spending plans in line so that too great a burden of interest rates and taxation does not fall on productive industry. But we have also made clear that the Government accept their responsibility to take remedial action in facing the industrial changes taking place in South Wales. We have already announced those measures in the case of Shotton. We are considering the position in South Wales in the light of recent actions and decisions by the board of the British Steel Corporation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, because of the alarm and despondency about Government economic and industrial policy, the TUC in Wales is to organise a national day of action and protest on Monday? This is intended to bring home to the Government the deep feeling felt by trade unionists in Wales. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking on the representations made by the TUC in Wales about the import of coking coal? There are large stocks of coking coal in Wales. What action is he also proposing about investment in the Phurnacite plant? This is vital and an urgent decision is required.
I have been asked three questions. The hon. Gentleman suggests that industrial action by the TUC will help the Welsh economy. I cannot think of anything likely to be more disastrous. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had heard the remarks of the head of Merry-weather and Son Ltd. when he announced the coming of its plant to Ebbw Vale on Friday, about the real issues that decide the success or failure of British companies. The hon. Gentleman should be emphasising what is necessary to make successful companies like Merry weather come to South Wales instead of trying to create a situation that will put the company off coming.
On coking coal, the Government have made clear that this is a matter for negotiation between the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board. They are free to use the funds being made available by the Government to work out arrangements between themselves. The Phurnacite plant is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. No announcement has yet been made about it.Advance Factories (Ceredigion)
4.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many advance factories in Ceredigion have not been allocated to potential industrialists and if he will make a statement.
Five out of 29 completed factories.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that certain parts of my constituency have had the highest number of unemployed per head of population in Wales for the past 10 years. What plans has he in mind to help the area? Will he consider upgrading the area to development area status or giving extra financial aid to the Development Board for Rural Wales?
In addition to the 29 completed factories in Ceredigion, the board is currently building a further 10 in Aberystwyth and two in Cardigan. By the middle of the year, there will be a total of 41 units in the area. The board will be announcing further factory development in its new factory building programme. A large part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency enjoys development area status at the present time.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say how his £3 million, or one-third, cut in the funding of the development board is helpful in tenanting empty advance factories?
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the £6 million provision for the board this year is the same provision as that made in the public expenditure plans of the previous Government. In previous years, some additional funds were made available because of under-spending in other sectors during the year. We are planning for the next financial year on the same basis as our predecessors.
This large area of unemployment in Ceredigion extends south of the River Teify into the Carmarthen constituency. The Teify has long been affected to a certain extent by the policies of the previous Government but particularly by those of this Government.
I am sure that the Development Board for Rural Wales will take note of the hon. Gentleman's representation. I do not think that the greater part of his constituency has such severe problems as some of those lo which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) referred.
Welsh Office (Staff)
5.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales what reduction in the number of Welsh Office employees he expects to achieve during 1980.
It is not possible at this stage to give a precise figure for 1980, but we shall continue to take all necessary action to achieve the total target reduction of 235 by 1982–83 announced on 6 December.
That news is welcome. Will my right hon. Friend keep the functions of the Welsh Office under review in order to identify unproductive activities that can be eliminated?
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are continuing to review all the functions and operations of the office.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that not everyone shares his joy and pleasure at the actual reduction of job opportunities in Government service for young people in Wales? Will he bear in mind that we are also concerned about labour-shedding in other departments in Wales? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing, for example, to save the essential Llanelli skillcentre? Is he conscious of the fact that, as Wales is particularly dependent on small firms that cannot afford their own training schemes, it is an act of lunacy to think of closing a skillcentre in South-West Wales?
I have recently seen the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission and drawn to his attention the many representations that have been made by hon. Members and others about the Llanelli skillcentre. I have emphasised to him the importance with which the skillcentre is rightly regarded in that part of Wales.
Is my right hon. Friend in a position to estimate the increase in the number of employees in the Welsh Office that might be occasioned by the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill that will shortly be introduced into the House?
Estimates we have made of the reduction in overall numbers in the Welsh Office fully take into account any consequences of current legislation.
Public Expenditure
6.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local government authorities and other organisations regarding the proposed cuts in public expenditure.
I have received 63 representations from local authorities and other organisations in Wales on reductions in public expenditure.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have received strong representations from the Welsh Counties Committee and the Council of the Principality representing all the district councils, expressing alarm over the effect on them of cuts in public expenditure? Will the right hon. Gentleman take on his shoulders the responsibility for these cuts and not put it on the councillors who have an impossible task in determining priorities? Such massive cuts have led to a difficult situation in Mid-Glamorgan, where school transport charges have had to be imposed.
I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about Mid-Glamorgan. If he looks at what has happened in other Welsh authorities, he will see that many of them have taken other options. There is no reason for thinking that the choice made by the Mid-Glamorgan council is the only choice. No doubt representations will continue to be made on that point. The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the scale of the cuts. They amount to 2½ per cent. over two years compared with cuts of 2½ per cent. in local government expenditure in a single year under the previous Labour Government.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the view of many of those best qualified in local government that there could be appreciable cuts in local government expenditure without any impairment of the qualiy of services? Is he further aware that there is some anxiety over: the impact of the proposed methods of controlling local government capital expenditure on job creation programmes, which may be carried out in partnership with private sources of finance and could be inhibited by Government legislation under contemplation?
I am sure that there is plenty of room in local government and elsewhere for improvements in efficiency and manning. It is known that local government manning is at record levels at present. The other matter to which my hon. Friend refers is currently being considered in Committee. The appropriate place for discussion of capital controls is in Committee where the Education (No. 2) Bill is being considered.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to school bus charges. Is it not a fact that the Education (No. 2) Bill proposes to give power to local authorities to make such charges? Would not the simplest solution be to delete Clause 23 of the Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to go so far, will he support amendments that the Opposition might propose to the Bill to prevent discriminatory charges on denominational grounds or on grounds of bilingualism as in the case of schools in mid-Glamorgan?
I deplore discriminatory charges and do not consider that they are necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to make that point to the Mid-Glamorgan authority. We have told the Church authorities—I have said it myself—that we shall of course consider all the points that are currently being made in the Committee considering the Bill.
Does not the Secretary of State accept that it is usual and normal in legislation to provide that there shall not be discrimination of one citizen against another under any Act of Parliament? There are plenty of precedents for that—in the Local Government Act, the Water Act and several other Acts. In these circumstances, will not the right hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Secretary of State for Education and Science to accept an amendment that will stop that type of discrimination, which will hit people very hard, particularly families with several children?
One would hope that it was not necessary to write in that kind of rule to prevent discrimination by local authorities in Wales. It is deplorable that it should be considered necessary in this case.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the serious cutbacks by local authorities, rates will be increased during the coming year? Is he in a position to say by what percentage they will be increased?
I am not prepared to give a forecast of rate increases. What I know is that the rate settlement for Wales was particularly good. I am sure that, given restraint by the local authorities, the rate increases can be kept down.
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the anxiety about the discriminatory nature of some proposals about school transport fares is not confined to one side of the House? Indeed, it is shared by many of us on the Conservative Benches.
I am sure that it is a matter that should concern all hon. Members. But I repeat that I hope that such views will be expressed firmly to the local authorities involved.
Overseas Students
7.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales what impact the increase in fees for overseas students is likely to have on institutions of higher education for which he is responsible.
It is too early to say. The picture will not be clear until the early summer.
Is the Minister aware that the Welsh education institutions, and the universities in particular, have a proud record and tradition of helping overseas students, not only in education but in international understanding? Will he therefore use all his powers to safeguard the tradition and reduce the financial effect that the Government's new policy on fees for overseas students will certainly have?
Public sector institutions in Wales have not drawn anything like the same proportion of students from overseas as have some colleges in England. For example, in 1978 the proportion was 8 per cent.; for England and Wales as a whole, it was 20 per cent. The effect of the fee increase will be correspondingly less in Wales. I assure the House that we have not ignored the potential benefits—economic, political and educational—that flow from the presence in this country of overseas students. But these potential gains must be seen in relation to a current subsidy approaching £100 million a year.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the excessive increase in fees implemented by the last Government seemed to have little effect upon the total number of overseas students coming to this country? Will he accept that there is grave concern on both sides of the House that students from the poorer countries have been inhibited from coming here as a result of the increase? Will he ensure that an adequate contingency fund is always kept to see that those students from the poorer countries are given the same opportunity to come to this country and benefit from the high standard of education as those from the richer countries?
One of the reasons why so many students have continued to come, despite increased fees, is the very high standard of our university education and other higher education. Our staff to student ratios are most favourable and our degree courses are shorter and more intensive. A certain number of students from the poorer countries can certainly come through the assistance provided by the overseas aid programme, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Nationalised Industries
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he will meet the chairman of the nationalised industries to discuss their operations in Wales.
9.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes next to meet the chairman of the nationalised industries to discuss their operations in Wales.
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he will meet the heads of nationalised industries to discuss the operation of their industries in Wales.
Meetings are arranged whenever the chairman or I think necessary.
Last week 10,155 workers in Wales from Port Talbot and Llanwern learnt that they would lose their jobs, while thousands of other workers in the coal mining industry are also to lose their jobs, as a result of decisions by the industries. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions at board level or at local level about those decisions? Will he urgently set up a task force to deal with what will be the most disastrous unemployment that Wales, in particular South Wales, has had since the war?
The news of proposed reductions at Llanwern and Port Talbot was first announced before Christmas. Last week's announcement involves rather fewer reductions than in the earlier options that were being considered. I can confirm that the chairman of the British Steel Corporation came to see me before announcing the options that were to be favoured by the board. I have already made clear that the Government accept their responsibility to introduce remedial measures. Now that we have firm proposals from BSC we are considering the matter urgently.
I am not convinced that task forces are necessarily the best way to organise and co-ordinate. I was interested when I went to Shotton to have that view confirmed by representatives of the local authorities there.When he talks to the chairman of BSC, will the right hon. Gentleman strongly inquire about the likely fate of the BSC strip metal research centre at Shotton, where an investment of about £8 million and more than 100 jobs are likely to disappear? Can he obtain for me details of the likely compensation for the employees there, and find out whether the Americans are likely to gain the technological information that the centre has? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the chairman that with the redundancies and allied job losses at Shotton now approximating nearly 8,000, that is an unacceptable figure.
I shall certainly make inquiries of the chairman on the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and then write to the hon. Gentleman. I note the hon. Gentleman's last remark. He will appreciate that the future of the excellent plant that remains at Shotton very much depends on its ability to sell its products. I am sure that he will agree that industrial disruption can only be damaging to the plant's future.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's plans for the steel industry, especially the unrealistic break-even point, will destroy the Welsh economy and turn South Wales into an industrial wasteland? Will the Government now raise that break-even point, so that the industry's problems can be looked at rationally and sensibly?
It must be faced that the principal reason why the BSC management is producing its present plan is the need to be competitive in a world market and to sell steel. It is its assessment of the present market that leads to the conclusion that it has announced. I deplore the continued suggestion that, however difficult the decisions may be—I certainly do not underestimate the consequence—they will turn South Wales into an industrial desert. I do not believe that that is helpful. Going round many of the industrial sites in Wales and seeing the new companies coming in, and the successful companies operating there, I find that that is not a true picture.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that further to postpone the achievement of competitiveness by increasing subsidies will only lay further burdens on the very industries that should be coming in to provide replacement jobs?
I am sure that that is right. I listened with interest to the views expressed last week in a long BBC broadcast in which the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) took part and which included a recording of an interview with me. In that programme people from the continent of Europe and from America pointed to the action being taken there and the fact that overseas competitors were moving ahead of our industry the whole time. That emphasises the need to do at least as well as, and better than, our competitors overseas.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, if there were an import embargo selectively on steel and steel products, as many as 25,000 jobs could be directly saved? Does he appreciate that the effect on, say, a washing machine would be only half of 1 per cent. on the retail price? Does he agree that that would be a reasonable price to pay considering the likely effect of these cuts?
I do not accept that analysis. I believe that import controls would have disastrous economic consequences for this country. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read, if he did not hear, the speech on this subject by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in the debate on steel, because the right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to put forward an overwhelming argument against the proposition advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
If the right hon. Gentleman holds that view on selective import controls, will he explain why he wrote the letter to the Wales TUC saying that there was a time and a place when unemployment might be so high as to demand import controls? Surely, the figures that we have been given for steel and for coal indicate that the situation in Wales is not as helpful as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, but is even gloomier than the Opposition fear?
The letter written from my office, not by me, to the Wales TUC—[Interruption.] I am not arguing; I am just setting the facts right—did not indicate that the steel problem was appropriate for that kind of temporary control to meet a temporary situation, particularly in circumstances of unfair competition by other countries. That has been the position of successive Governments. The position taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who made the detailed statement on which the letter from the Welsh Office was based, was wholly consistent with the action taken by British Governments over many years to deal with short-term distortions of that kind.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Works Of Art (Exports)
25.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on the Export of Works of Art concerning a procedure specifically designed for temporary exports which could be incorporated into the export control regulations.
:May I, before answering this question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your permission, in my capacity as Leader of the House, express the hope that Mr. Speaker will very soon be fully restored to health from his present indisposition.
In answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), may I say that the committee is considering the matter urgently and, while I cannot predict when I shall receive its recommendations, I hope to do so shortly.Is legislation contemplated on this complex issue?
No immediate legislation. I do not know what the committee will recommend. My hope is that we shall be able to adjust this without legislation, but it will depend on the committee's recommendations.
May I, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, wish Mr. Speaker a speedy return to health and full effectiveness?
May I underline to the right hon. Gentleman the great importance of ensuring that there is no risk whatsoever in this examination that he is setting up that permanent loss of objects as important as the Michelangelo Tondo could arise from temporary export abroad for exhibition purposes? It is most important that that sort of danger does not arise.I am fully in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I am most concerned that no part of our heritage should be exported. I assure him that in this regard I shall treat these objects as if they were my own.
I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to behave as he did about the Newman portrait.
The Arts (Government Support)
26.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to make to safeguard the 1979–80 level of Government support for the living arts during 1980–81.
I refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper on the Government's public expenditure plans for 1980–81, published last November. This stated that direct central Government expenditure in support of museums, libraries and the live arts in 1980–81 should allow a continuation of activities at a level broadly comparable to what has been possible in the current year.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the contribution from public funds in this country in support of the living arts is a great deal less than that in some neighbouring European countries? Therefore, will he ensure that that contribution is not eroded by inflation and that, in so far as it is, it is made up, because there is no fat left to be saved?
I sympathise to a certain extent with the point made by my hon. Friend. However, I would not offer any guarantees or assurances this afternoon on the question that he has put to me. By comparison with other EEC members, we enjoy a great deal of commercial and industrial sponsorship for the arts which other countries have not worked up to such an effective level as we have.
Is the Minister or his right hon. Friend aware of the imminent departure by a British orchestra for Russia under an Arts Council grant?
Bring it back.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the national credibility gap that is created by sending music to the Soviet Union now while treatening the withdrawal of sport later?
I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my colleagues both in Cabinet and Government. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is eminently aware of that point, will have taken due note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Does my hon. Friend agree that vast numbers of tourists are attracted to this country every year because of our arts and heritage? Does he also agree that little is to be achieved by candle-end economies in these departments?
I think that I understand what my hon. Friend means by "candle-end economies". The picture is not as desperate as he paints it. He knows the importance that we attach to taking the arts to the rest of the United Kingdom, and we recognise the contribution that tourists have made to the arts. We hope that they will long continue to prosper in that way.
Is the Minister aware that to rely on commercial support for the arts is to rely on very frail support? Is he also aware that the chairman of Covent Garden in the annual report said that he cannot rely significantly on such support in future? If a prestigious company such as Covent Garden cannot rely on such support, what are the smaller, poorer companies in the provinces going to do to get commercial support? It is Government support that is needed.
I certainly understand what the hon. Lady is saying. But she must appreciate that there are many sources which we should certainly exploit in Government. The previous Administration tried it and we intend to do he same. It is notable that a number of companies in the smaller communities in this country have begun to make contributions in the local regional arts context. I do not believe that the hon. Lady in her right mind—and she is fair and reasonable on these matters—would contend that is not a sensible suggestion. It is not our intention to build our entire support on such contributions. I agree that in some respects it might be frail support, but it is some support. The world of art, I am sure, would want to pay tribute to the many companies and organisations, both large and small, which have done such a tremendous job in recent years.
Is the Minister aware of the remarkable success of a recent visit by the Welsh National Opera Company to this city? Will he therefore ensure that the company, which does more than its fair share of touring, gets a fair grant?
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I think that I am right in saying that here was a classic example of industrial support from a well-known oil company. At the same time, I am sure that both my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were eminently aware of that tremendous success and contribution.
Does the Minister accept that the argument that private patronage is any substitute for public support is complete nonsense? Above all, will he follow the example of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who has given as an example of what he means by private patronage—treating things as if they were his own, particularly the Cardinal Newman portrait?
I shall address my response to the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not accept the argument that private patronage is a nonsense. Far from it. It has made enormous contributions, and the campaign which we plan over the next few months is intended to expand it. The hon. Gentleman has not advanced a reasonable argument. I can only assume that he does not fully understand the contribution that has been made.
British Library
27.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received on the relocation of the British Library.
I have recently received a letter from the president of the Royal Society urging that work on the new building on the Euston Road site should begin as soon as possible and I have also had strong representations in favour of the new building from a number of distinguished people involved with the library in one way or another.
I do not wish my hon. Friend to pre-empt the work of the new Select Committee, but will he at least agree that the project to re-site the British Library at a cost of about £200 million, involving the loss of the use of the historic reading room, is not auspicious at this time? Are there any cost implications in extra time being provided for consideration before a decision is made?
I am reviewing the project. The sum mentioned by my hon. Friend must be spread over a number of years. Conservation of the books is vital. The British Library should be able to give a first-rate service not only to British readers but to scholars from all over the world.
What is the latest proposed timetable for the work?
We are reviewing the whole project. There is no question of the project being carried out in one year or even in two or three years. I hope to be in the position to tell the House the Government's proposals when the review has been finished.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us would agree that in this context Cardinal Newman was right when he said that one step was enough? Does he agree that there is a real case for retaining the reading room? Will he pay proper attention to the representations of scholars all over the world to retain that historic place?
The preservation of the reading room is involved in the review. I offer another saying by the great cardinal. He said that to change is to be human and to change often is to be perfect.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will not allow the Secretary of State for the Environment to sell off the Bloomsbury site—there are rumours to that effect—because it would pre-empt the future possible use of that very valuable site for these purposes?
That is a matter for my right hon. Friend. I have no ministerial responsibility for it.
Arts Council
28.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans next to meet the chairman of the Arts Council.
On Monday 4 February.
Does the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that he will certainly have much to discuss with the chairman of the Arts Council? Is he aware that the arts have been under-funded for the whole of this decade and that they receive less than 2 per cent. of the total education budget? Does he accept that this year £1 million has been lopped off the grant? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Arts Council is desperately anxious to know when the 1980–81 grant will be announced because it is living from hand to mouth waiting for the next financial year to bring the expected appalling news? May we know when the grant is likely to be announced and what it is likely to be?
I agree with the hon. Lady if she is saying that no Government in the last decade have given the support to the arts which I personally believe that they should have. I ask the hon. Lady to put the position in perspective. The cut in the Arts Council budget was smaller than that sustained by any Department. No cuts have been made by the Arts Council to any of its clients' budgets this year. An announcement about the size of the grant must be made to the House first. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement within the next few weeks.
Before my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Arts Council will he talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and ensure that his Department makes a contribution to the Arts Council in view of the enormous importance of the arts to the tourist industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right for the Secretary of State for Trade to share responsibility for funding the Arts Council on a more generous basis?
The Secretary of State for Trade has no responsibility for the arts, but my hon. Friend's suggestion is most interesting. All contributions are welcome and I shall pass on his suggestion. However, my hopes are greater than my expectations.
What action does the Chancellor of the Duchy intend to take to offset the damage outlined in the working party report, caused by the Arts Council not being in effective charge of its own operations because of restraints by the Department? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to lessen those limitations on effective action by the Arts Council?
I do not believe that the Arts Council is under any restraints from the Department.
But it is.
I am speaking for myself and from my experience. The cooperation between myself and the Arts Council is harmonious, happy and constructive. I hope that it will continue to be so.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no limit to the amount of taxpayers' money for which the Arts Council could find a home?
The demands of the arts on the total budget are modest, not excessive. I am glad that the present Government are able to say that the general level of support for the arts next year, despite the financial stringency, will be similar to this year's.
Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of the Arts Council about the Royal Academy? Does he know that the Arts Council feels that it is impossible to advance money to the Royal Academy? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Royal Academy plays a vital part in the artistic life of the nation and should be assisted?
Of course I accept that the Royal Academy is an important artistic and cultural institution. However, a basic principle of arts support is that decisions about the levels of support and who is supported are taken, not by myself, but by the Arts Council. It is important for that constitutional principle to be maintained. After all, there might be a Minister whose taste does not accord with that of my hon. Friend and he would then take a different view.
Provincial Theatre And Opera
29.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funds have been made available to (a) provincial theatre and (b) provincial opera for the coming year; and if he will express this in real percentage terms of the previous year's allocation.
Funds for provincial theatre and opera come from a variety of sources, including the Arts Council, local authorities and private bodies. The level of funds from the Arts Council in the coming year will be a matter for the council to determine in the light of its own grant-in-aid.
Does the Minister accept the real contribution made by the provincial opera and the provincial theatre? Will he be mindful of the dangers of giving ever-increasing grant aid to the National Theatre while the total grant aid to the arts remains static?
I take note of that. My right hon. Friend and I agree that the contribution by the provincial opera and theatre should be encouraged. However, I do not wish to make any commitment this afternoon.
Is the Minister aware of the threat to the Welsh National Youth Orchestra as a result of Welsh Office cuts to education authorities? Will he have a word with the philistines in the Welsh Office so that a magnificent youth orchestra is saved?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter remark. I certainly do not accept that there are philistines on this side of the House. There is none whatsoever. We recognise art in all its forms.
In the light of that question, I rise as one of the Minister's cultured hon. Friends, to see whether he will pursue an idea which the Tourism Committee considered with Equity and the Theatrical Management Association. Will the Minister consider the possibility of a theatrical society to provide tickets for both provincial and London theatres to encourage the recent insurgence of theatre goers by enabling them to purchase tickets for a year in bulk? Does the Minister accept that in that way we might encourage people on the home front to continue their interest in the living theatre in London and the provinces? Will he originate discussions on those lines to see if we can do something to help the living theatre?
My hon and learned Friend—dare I say my hon. and cultured Friend—has certainly made a most interesting suggestion, and as soon as any details are forthcoming my office will be only too happy to give it detailed consideration.
Floods (South Wales)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice? You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and certainly Mr. Speaker, will know that there was widespread flooding in many parts of South Wales. We have been making representations concerning financial support for local authorities and individuals. We hear from press reports that the EEC is to give some assistance to individuals, but the House has been kept totally in the dark about the assistance and support that the Government will give to individuals and local authorities.
There were questions on the Order Paper for answer today relating to the floods in South Wales, but they were not reached. I believe that it is within the power of the Minister to seek permission to answer them after 3.30 pm. Has the Secretary of State for Wales requested such permission?I have had no such request.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week the Opposition were expecting a statement from the Secretary of State on the Welsh floods. I asked the Leader of the House whether he would undertake to convey to the Secretary of State our expectation of such a statement, since thousands of families have been affected. Since the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are both here, may we have such a statement?
It is not a matter for the Chair whether the Government make a statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comment will have been noted.
Statutory Instruments &C
Ordered,
That the draft Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Safety) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
Orders Of The Day Supply
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]— considered.
Northern Region
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Cope.]
3.33 pm
It is a great pleasure to address the House on the problems of the Northern region, because that region and its 3 million people have a unique claim to the attention of the House. Put simply, they have suffered greater economic and social deprivation than any other part of the United Kingdom, other than Northern Ireland, for virtually the whole of the last decade. I welcome this opportunity because the House and the Government must ask themselves how much longer this state of affairs can be allowed to continue and, possibly, to get worse.
We need to consider what steps should be taken to rectify the position, which has existed for so long. Geographically, this country is largely still two nations, with the North suffering economic and social deprivation of an order that is not fully appreciated in the South. The North has many attributes and good features. I do not propose to go into those this afternoon, although, doubtless, hon. Members will want to sing the parises of their constituencies today. In referring to the Northern region, I include not only the North-East but the beautiful Lake District and the Pennines. We cover the whole of that beautiful area. However, it is not upon those areas that I wish to concentrate. The North has many successful industries with high productivity and good industrial relations comparing with the best in the country. But it is not of that that I shall be speaking this afternoon. We have such fundamental problems that the House must address itself to them and consider solutions that can be introduced by the Government and by the public authorities in the region. At the core of the region's problems is the persistent high level of unemployment. At present, 117,000 men and women are without jobs, a rate of about 8·5 per cent., compared with a rate for Great Britain of 5·5 per cent. The level there is 55 per cent. higher than the average for Great Britain, and it represents a staggering figure. That state of affairs has existed for most of the last decade and, in some cases, even before that. There has always been a wide differential between the individual regions and the national level. That gap is now widening, as it has been for the past decade, with over 20,000 redundancies per annum occurring in traditional industries over recent years. Individual areas such as Hartlepool and Consett have even higher levels of unemployment than the region as a whole. We also have the highest ratio of unemployment to unfilled vacancies of any part of the country, a figure of 13·4 to 1, which compares to the next highest of 11·7 to 1 in the North-West. There are 10 unemployed people for every vacancy in the region as a whole, whereas in Great Britain the figure is five unemployed for every vacancy. Last year, when unemployment dropped in the rest of the country, the North had to run hard just to stand still and hold unemployment at the level that existed at the beginning of the year. The outlook is potentially disastrous, and, on the basis of national forecasts and the figures that I have seen for the region I believe that unemployment may rise from 117,000 towards 150,000. The Government are forecasting a drop in private and public investment in the country in the forthcoming year. Compared with previous years, there is also likely to be a substantial drop in the level of growth nationally, and all this comes on top of the region's severe structural problems, which are caused by the continuing decline of traditional industries such as shipbuilding and coal mining. In coal alone, the numbers employed dropped from 602,000 in 1960—my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) will be aware of these figures—to 285,000 in 1968. I obtained those figures from the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in a debate last week. He drew them to the attention of the Government, and I happily repeat them to remind hon. Members of the blows that traditional industries in our region have had to sustain. The story for shipbuilding has been much the same. My right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Wearside constituencies will know of the disasters that have befallen that industry, and that applies to Teesside and Tyneside. Every part of the region has been hit by substantial redundancies in recent years. The steel industry is another example. In my area of Cleveland, as in other parts of the region, that industry has been hard hit, and it will be hit even harder over the next few years. There have been disastrous closures in other industries—Courtaulds at Spennymoor, Vickers on Tyneside, and, just the other week, the John Collier closure on Teesside, with a loss of 900 jobs. Hardly a week has gone by in recent months when I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends have not had closures taking place in our areas in the region. There has been hardly a week—Hardly a day.
Yes, as my hon. Friend says, hardly a day when closures have not been announced. The situation is about as bleak as one could imagine.
All the details of the difficulties facing the region were brought together in a report by the Northern region strategy team, published in 1977. I do not want to rehearse all the facts produced in that report or in the review of progress that was made public in February last year. It was clear from the detailed work done by that highly professional strategy team that we had in our region a higher proportion of unskilled workers, that we had lower educational attainment—only 15 per cent. of our children going on to further and higher education compared with 22 per cent. in the rest of the country—and that we had a higher incidence of sickness and disability, with twice the national average of disability benefit and sickness benefit being paid in our region, the reason, of course, largely being the character of the principal industries in our area, mining, shipbuilding and the like. In our region there were more pensioners on supplementary benefit than there were in any other region. Moreover, about 100,000 houses-10 per cent. of our stock—were unfit or substandard and not fit for occupation. Those facts are an indication of the truly depressing picture of our region, and they show why we have a unique claim on the attention of the House. I shall now look at the way in which, over their nine months in office, the Government have begun to deal with these problems—if "deal with" be the right expression. In fact, they have not dealt with them at all. They have made them worse, exacerbating the problems of the Northern region. There has been a whole chapter of announcements attacking the region's economy and its structure. I am sorry to have to say that, and it gives me no pleasure to do so. All this is a far cry from the time, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) and others who have been here longer than I have will remember in 1962, when—I recall it clearly—Lord Hailsham visited Thornaby, Stockton and other parts of the Northern region, doffing his flat cap. Just as my hon. Friends were, I was incensed by the patronising attitude shown by the noble Lord in putting on that cloth cap and parading himself about the region. Nevertheless, I say this for the noble Lord: at least, what he did was better than what the present Government are doing, since they are reversing the very policies that were introduced at that time by Lord Hailsham, who, I remind my hon. Friends, is still a member of the Cabinet. With the White Paper following his visit, Lord Hailsham began a whole programme of public works and other activities, which led to substantial employment in the Northern region and in some ways, indeed, provided the infrastructure for the growth throughout the 1960s which has so much fallen off since then. It is that policy that the present Government ought to be pursuing, not their policy of rolling back intervention in the economy of the region as they now are. The national economic prospects are grim. With the Government's obeisance to monetarism throttling the country's economy, we have low growth, high interest rates, low investment and a high exchange rate—all of these punishing industry throughout the country and especially in the Northern region, where we are more vulnerable in some respects to these influences. In their regional policy, the Government have made a direct attack upon the help and support given to the regions. The measures of 17 July cut regional aid by some £233 million. That is a cut of nearly 40 per cent. on what it would have been, and this at a time when the need for that assistance will grow and grow. On 1 August development area grants in our region will be cut from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent., and there will be no grants at all in intermediate areas. The qualifying levels for grant for plant and machinery are to be raised from £100 to £500 and the qualifying levels for buildings from £1,000 to £5,000. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of Slate who has responsibility, among other things, for small businesses is to reply to the debate, since that is one matter, apart from a couple of others to which I shall come later, on which I want a reply. How can he approve the raising of the thresholds for grant from £100 to £500 and from £1,000 to £5,000 when this will obviously directly hit small businesses and new businesses that are Loping to establish themselves? We all know—the report of the strategy team made this clear—that the one thing that we need in the Northern region is the growth of indigenous businesses and small businesses, yet what the Government have done will directly weaken the incentive for the establishment and growth of small businesses. In addition, the Government have raised the exemption threshold for industrial development certificates in London and the South-East and other non-assisted areas to 50,000 sq. ft. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the former Minister, pointed out in the debate on regional policy, this means that not only will offices and other developments of 50,000 sq. ft. and more be built in the South, but provision can be made almost on the nod for its extension to double that size, with the consequence that much larger plants well above 50,000 sq. ft. may well be lost to the Northern region. There have been changes also in the designation of special development areas and development areas. I note—I hope that the Minister will explain this against the background that I have described—that all the upgradings in respect of designated areas are outside the Northern region, and we have only downgradings. How can the Minister justify those changes of status when in Alnwick, for example, there was unemployment of 7·1 per cent., in the Darlington and South-West Durham area there was unemployment of 7·1 per cent., in central Durham there was unemployment of 7·4 per cent., in Morpeth the level was 8·8 per cent.. in White haven it was 8·3 per cent. and in Workington it was 8·1 per cent. How can the Minister justify downgrading those areas in face of the unemployment figures that I have given? I should point out that they are not the present figures—they are higher now—but were the figures at the time when the decision was taken last July. As a consequence, the special temporary employment programmes and the employment transfer schemes are available in fewer areas in the region than they were hitherto. All these cuts in regional aid—my hon. Friends realise this only too well—are going to help make up the tax rebates that are being handed out throughout the rest of the country irrespective of whether people in those other parts need them. I could go through a long story of recent Government actions that are hitting our region, but I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak and I do not want to take too long. Let me just mention that the Government are closing skillcentres, for example. These are the places which give people training. As I said earlier, one of our problems in the Northern region is that we have too many unskilled workers. This is one of our structural problems. Fifty per cent. of our unemployed people are unskilled. But what are the Government doing at a time when unemployment is rising and we have more unskilled people on the dole? They are closing the training centres that could have given people skills. The Government have closed the Location of Offices Bureau, the bureau in London whose job it was to help firms to move out into regions such as ours. We have the same story in the dispersal of civil servants. We were to have 3,000 civil servants from the Property Services Agency dispersed to Middles rough, the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middles rough (Mr. Bottomley). The plan for the Government Chemist to go to Cumbria has been cancelled, so that we shall not have those desperately needed white-collar jobs which could have assisted the employment structure of the region. There has been a cutback in the activity of the National Enterprise Board. If the guidelines for the national board are strictly adhered to, the result will be a severe emasculation of the activities of the Northern region board. Week after week and month after month we campaigned for Inmos to come to our region. An assurance had been given—myright hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West can, I think, confirm it—that the first Inmos plant would go to an assisted area. It has not done so; it has gone to Bristol. Why has it not come to the Northern region, where we have the skills and the plant available and where the technology and the new jobs are desperately needed? The Government have abolished the regional economic planning council, which was the focus to which the Northern regional strategy team worked. It did much of the work on the campaign that we ran to try to get the new Inmos plant into the region. I have mentioned the hammer blow of closures and redundancies that have taken place. During the debate on regional policy, the Secretary of State for Industry said:That is a joke when we consider the atmosphere that I have described. Are the Government suggesting that in the Northern region we do not have the enterprise, the competitive spirit, the productivity and the good industrial relations to which he was referring? The facts speak for themselves. The region possesses those qualities. However, the Government's actions and economic policies are killing the very things that the Secretary of State says that he wants to encourage. I have a letter from the Teesside Small Business Club. I am sure that the chairman will not object if I quote it. It happened to reach me last week in response to representations that I have been making to Ministers on behalf of the club. I think that the Under-Secretary of State knows the Teesside Small Business Club. It contains much enterprise, energy and initiative. I note that the Minister confirms that. He nods his head vigorously. I do not know whether he will nod so vigorously when he hears the contents of the chairman's letter. The chairman wrote:"There has to be enterprise, competitiveness, high productivity and a reputation for co-operation between management and the work force in the assisted areas if they are to reach the level of employment that we all want them to reach. We need more indigenous growth in the assisted areas. That is why the changes in climate and economic context which we have set ourselves to try to achieve are so relevant to the assisted as well as to the non-assisted areas."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 373.]
That is the verdict of one small but energetic business club. That is what it thinks about the Government's policies. What should be done to overcome the problems? There is substantial evidence that regional policy has worked effectively. That evidence may be drawn from the eighth report of the Expenditure Committee and from other reports. I shall not go through all the figures. I merely say that they are available to hon. Members. Bearing in mind the evidence that is available, the needs of the Northern region and the effectiveness of regional policy, I ask the Minister to reconsider the designation of areas and levels of grant for areas that have levels of unemployment that are consistently above the average. We believe that they should be reconsidered. We contend that designations as well as levels of grant should be returned to their previous levels. We hope that the Under-Secretary of State will make an announcement about that before the debate ends. Secondly, I hope that the Minister will vigorously pursue and support proposals made by the European Parliament and by others for the development of EEC funds for the regions. The regional fund has made major contributions to the Northern region. It has been one of the greatest recipients of EEC funds. If there is an increase in the level of funds made available as a result of the row that is taking place about the budget, I hope that we shall be able to obtain even more substantial funds from that source. Thirdly, I hope that the Government will maintain policies to redistribute Government and public expenditure in favour of the regions. That should apply across the board, but in the Northern region we are especially aware of the needs of the Health Service. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the policy of redistributing resources within the Health Service will not be reversed and that the inequalities that have existed between the Northern region and other regions, especially London and the South-East, will be overcome by the payment of larger sums to the Health Service in the region. Finally, I ask the Minister to tell us whether the Secretary of State is in a position to make an announcement on the establishment of a northern development agency. We have been pressing for such an agency for a long time. We succeeded in convincing our colleagues in the Labour Government and in the Labour Party of the need for it. It featured in the Labour Party election manifesto. The Labour Party said that it would establish such an agency. It was recognised that there was urgent need for it. We want the agency to have substantial initial capital. At present, job promotion in the region is carried out by the Department of Industry, the Manpower Services Commission, the English industrial Estates Corporation, the NEB regional board, the former economic planning council, the North of England Development Council, by EEC regional aid funds, by local authorities—indeed, by Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. We want to see a focal point for job creation in the region, and it should be a northern development agency. That is a proposal that has come from not only the Labour Party. It has received wide support in the region, including the CBI regional committee. I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration and will adopt it. It is sad that I have had to concentrate on so many of the deficiencies and problems of the region. There are many good features, many good firms and many high levels of productivity that benefit Britain. If the Government want to suc- ceed in realising the achievements that the Secretary of State for Industry outlined, they will have to give the Northern region hope for the future. That will be necessary if the enterprise and initiative that they want to see are to flower forth and result in jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) tells me that there are about 3,700 steel redundancies in the offing in his area. Those redundancies will not be avoided by developing private enterprise, tax cuts and the plethora of promises in the Tory manifesto. The whole of the Northern region is Consett writ large. Towns such as Consett and Hartlepool will not respond to blathering about tax incentives and other Tory dogma. We need firm Government initiative, financial support and other support of the sort that was provided by the previous Labour Government. That is what will help to revive the region, and that is what we are asking for this afternoon."May I say that it is the consensus of opinion that the Government have not as yet done anything concrete for small businesses and we feel that their efforts have not in any way relieved the pressure on finance. On the contrary their increase in bank rates has had a terrible impact."
The attendance in the Chamber indicates that this is an important subject and that many right hon. and hon. Members will wish to catch my eye. A self-denying ordinance on speeches would be not only fair but generally welcomed by the House.
3.58 pm
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on the manner in which he delivered his speech and on the content of the first part of it, with which I have no disagreement. Of course, I have disagreement with many of the comments in the second part his speech.
Both sides of the House are at one—I refer to right hon. and hon. Members who represent the region—in appreciating its peculiar and particular problems. We have tried jointly over quite a period to solve those problems, and not without success. It was fair of the hon. Member for Thornaby to suggest that there is much in the Northern region of which we may be proud. We have some fine firms, some good employers, and some splendid work forces. However, our problems remain. I took issue with the hon. Gentleman when he suggested that the policies of the past eight months have brought all the troubles upon our heads. Let us take the period since the war as part of our consideration. The representation of the Northern region in this place has not, I am sorry to say, changed all that much during that period. Until the general election I used to say, from an almost solitary position on the Opposition Benches, that that was a temporary embarrassment. I have stopped saying that for a while. I shall start again presently. The years since the war have seen Conservative Governments and Labour Governments in office for an equal number of years. Representation during that period may be divided in two between Conservative and Labour Governments. There has been as much Labour Government as Conservative Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will accept at least a measure of any responsibility that there may be for any troubles in the region being due to Government action. I put a rather different aspect to the matter. Both major parties have tried to solve the problems of the region. I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman returned to raising, once again, Lord Hailsham's visit to the region in the early 1960s. I accompanied Lord Hailsham on his visit. The day that he bought that cloth cap was the stormiest of days—rather like today—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the only thing that would have stayed on his head was the cap that he bought. That incident has given the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues something to say in successive debates over the years. The Hailsham report has been the blueprint for regional development, not only in the Northern region but in every development area in Britain. The report's recommendations were fully noted and acted upon by both Conservative and Labour Governments. Our region would be in a much worse position without that report. The problem of the Northern region is one of declining industry. The hon. Member for Thornaby did not need to seek the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) if he required information on the declining numbers employed in the coal mining industry.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott)—who is one of my constituents—understands the problems of the Northern region. However, the number employed in the mining industry has declined from 50,000 to 7,000 despite the success or otherwise of regional policy from Lord Hailsham onwards. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Government, with all the problems that we face—such as youth unemployment and general unemployment figures between 10 and 15 per cent.—decided to reduce the status of the area from special development area status to development area status, with all the attendant losses?
I shall be delighted to try to answer that question. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant)—who is my representative in the House—feels strongly about the problems of his constituency. So do I. I was born in that constituency and I know it well. After a number of years of Labour Government, what have been the results of the emphasis on aid during that period? Did the Labour Government solve the problem of unemployment in the North-East? The answer is "No". During 17½ years of both Labour and Conservative Governments, it would not be unreasonable or unfair—but accurate—to say that under periods of Labour Government unemployment in the country, especially in the Northern region, has risen. During periods of Conservative Government, unemployment has fallen.
The Government were elected to change the course of our economic policy.They were not elected in the Northern region.
I accept that we did not have the electoral success in the Northern region that we had in other parts of the country, but we did not do too badly. I am sure that it has not escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) that I am still a Member. With most of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is aware that an enormous effort was made by the Labour Party in the Northern region to prevent my return to the House, but here I stand today.
The Government were elected with a mandate to change the country's economic course because the policies introduced and followed by the previous Labour Administration had failed to bring about economic recovery. We must consider problems, and consider them fairly. We are trying to prevent an imbalance between the regions. We tried to do so in a previous period in office, as did the previous Labour Government. I give them full credit for trying. They failed. We shall try to succeed. The problems of the region are mainly those of declining industry. It is not only mining that is affected, but shipbuilding, heavy engineering and, currently, the enormous problems faced particularly by Consett of a declining steel industry. The CBI report published today suggests that we need 2·5 million new jobs in Britain during the next 10 years. Everyone attending the debate knows that a substantial proportion of those new jobs is needed in the Northern region. I welcome the report, especially the passage that suggests that we need full co-operation between management and workers in every industry and at every level in every industry if we are to overcome our economic ills. There is a brighter side to the Northern region. There are many good examples of co-operation between management and workers. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who is in his place, knows that that appertains to North-East industries. I have respect for the present union and management approach within Vickers Elswick in Newcastle. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), who is also in his place, is working with me in an attempt to help that firm. It is essential to get the size of industries right. It is no use any of us, in this debate or any other, imagining that the taxpayer in successful industry can continue to maintain unsuccessful industry in its present size. As a Parliament and as a Government, we must have the courage to accept that nationally, in our main industries, we will have smaller work forces in heavy industry. The Opposition must accept that in the name of their responsibility. It is essential to get that right and to ensure that our industry becomes internationally competitive. It is no good continuing to bury our heads in the sand. Redundancy is dreadful, and we all hate it. There is nothing that I dislike more than receiving a redundant worker, or body of workers—men in their forties and fifties—who see little hope of re-employment. The worst part of my job as a Member of Parliament is trying to give hope and comfort to such workers. We have plenty of them in the Northern region. Big industry would be welcome in our region. There was enormous disappointment about Inmos. However, do not let us cry into our silicon chips. Do not let us forget that there will be considerable spin-off industry. Do not let us cry "Wolf" too often. Do not let us run down our region. It is ready to receive—and will receive thankfully—any spin-off industry from the main establishment. It is tragic to learn that at Consett there are to be about 3,700 probable redundancies.Definite.
Definite, then.
The answer lies in small industry and its development. I welcome the fact that in the Consett area is a site of 80 acres owned by the English Industrial Estates Corporation on which two factories are already under construction. That trading estate is known as Consett No. 1. I hope that before very long it will be occupied as the Government's economic policy gets under way, as I am sure it will, and we get industrial expansion and overcome the awful legacy of the Labour Government. Then, perhaps, we can reduce the minimum lending rate, which I very much agree is troubling small and medium businesses. I hope that the hon. Member for Thornaby realises that presidents of associations and individual business men are not writing only to Labour Members. They write to me every day asking why money costs so much and why they have to pay so dearly for their overdrafts. The answer is that inflation—it was rampant inflation that this Government inherited from their predecessors—must be kept under control and the only method is initially to control the money supply. The only way in which MLR could have been lower in these last nine months is if the Government had cut public spending, which has reached excessive proportions, much more than they did; they were not prepared, for social reasons, to do so. When we get bank lending under control and interest rates down, we shall get the right measure of industrial expansion which is needed for the region. It is said that small business is not the answer, that we want something big. Heaven help us if we had not had the trading estates in the North-East of England, if we had not had the Team Valley trading estate, the very first and the best of the lot, which was established in the 1930s by a Conservative Government and within which is the headquarters of the English Industrial Estates Corporation. Heaven help the Northern region if it had not had the small employers in the trading estates. We want more such employers. I am encouraged, as I know the corporation is—its chairman and officers have told me so with great emphasis—that clause 9 of the Industry Bill, which is now before the House, will take the shackles off that corporation. It was ridiculous that such a corporation, with its extensive knowledge and considerable expertise, should, as an official told me, in the Labour Government's time, have been able to "indicate" to an incoming employer where the factories were but not persuade him which one to take. He said "We can give guidance about where the factories are but we cannot advise where the companies should go." The Industry Bill takes the shackles off the corporation. There lies the main answer to the hon. Member's suggestion of a development agency. We have had far too many agencies, costing far too much, crossing wires one with another and duplicating one another's activities. I dread the thought of a development agency with an immense bureaucracy, its cost and the way in which it will hamper the EIEC, which is the body that can do most for our region.Does my hon. Friend agree that the origin of the development agency was the inability of the Labour Government to ensure the loyalty of their North-East Members in the face of the devolution proposals for Scotland?
Yes, indeed. At the time of the Labour Government's proposals, there were two periods when we were threatened—I emphasise that word—with a Parliament just over the border in Scotland, which would have had civil servants, at goodness knows what cost, a press lobby and various arms and agencies. Of course, some Labour Members honourably objected to it—and thank goodness it did not come about. I agree that it was then that the development agency for the Northern region would have been essential. Now it is superfluous, just another layer of bureaucracy. The answer lies not in another advisory body or another batch of civil servants but in lower taxation, the encouragement of worker and manager alike to produce more in real terms.
Does the hon. Member's scathing description of the possible northern development agency represent his view of the present Welsh and Scottish agencies?
As I have said to the hon. Member in debate and privately, any form of devolution should have related to the country as a whole. Any development agencies should be evenly spread over this small island. If we had had a northern development agency for Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland in the last few years, does anyone imagine that Humberside would not have charged in to demand one? What about one for Merseyside? How many development agencies would we have ended up with? Development agencies for restricted areas—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the development areas—are not the answer.
I am encouraged to know that the EIEC has begun building what it calls "mini factories". There are 44 factories under construction at the moment—22 of 500 sq. ft. and 22 of 1,000 sq. ft. These units are expected to be completed by May. Even more encouraging, there is considerable demand for them by tenants. I know that these factories will not employ hundreds—they will employ scores, groups of 60, 30 or even 10—but this is the answer to our unemployment problem. It is not a quick answer but it is a real and distinct one. Employment in these factories will be real and not synthetic. All power to the EIEC and to our trading estates in the region. I hope that the Industry Bill will do a great deal to improve our employment position. There is a great deal still to do with regard to training. For many years now I have advocated in debates in the House and elsewhere linking the education system, for the boys and girls who will not go beyond O-level, to some form of training for industry. Once, in the company of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I took part in a broadcast in Sunderland, in a school hall filled with unemployed young people. The headmaster said, when I made this suggestion in the broadcast, that it was no part of the education system to train people in industrial skills and that the system's role was to teach young people to think. I accepted that then and I accept it today, but it is desirable to do something rather than have so many young people suddenly ejected from the schools into the streets of the North-East without any skills at all. Every evening, the Newcastle evening newspaper has columns of advertisements for vacancies requiring skills which are just not there. We must do more about training. We must continue to lower taxation and do something about capital taxation. The effect of capital taxation on small and medium employers is savage. It is ridiculous that because of capital taxation the would-be enterprising business man, the entrepreneur, is not given any encouragement to build up a business which he can pass on to his children. That must be altered. It is desirable that people be allowed to build up capital to pass on to their children. I have spoken for longer than I intended. It was suggested at the beginning of my speech that I was filibustering. I was not, although I acknowledge that I have had to filibuster in the past. I welcome, as do the Conservative Government, a further debate on the problems of the Northern region. We should never see our problems in isolation. The only way in which the Northern region will have the prosperity for which we all long, and a reasonable level of employment for which we all long, is if the national economic policy of the Government is working. There is every hope that the Government will succeed with their economic policy. There is, therefore, every hope for the future of the Northern region.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate you understandably called upon hon. Members to make brief speeches. You also pointed out the heavy Labour representation in the Northern region. The hon. Gentleman made a speech which lasted for 27 minutes. May I ask you to repeat your call for short speeches?
I do not need to repeat it, but I underline it.
4.22 pm
In eight short months of Conservative Government, the whole nation has had good cause to regret the decision of last May, not least in regard to regional policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was right to introduce the subject of unemployment figures and vacancy figures of the various regions. It is a stark tragedy that the Northern region has been at the top of the unemployment league for so long. The figure for the Northern region is 8·5 per cent., while the figure for the South-East is 3·5 per cent. The difference is wider now than it might have been had Labour policies been continued, even over such a short period. There is only one vacancy for every 12 unemployed persons in the Northern region, as against three vacancies for every unemployed person in the South-East. Regrettably, Inmos decided to site its first production unit in the South-West. The unemployment figure in the South-West is 5·6 per cent. and there is a vacancy ratio of 1 in 6. The figure is much lower in Bristol. That is a compelling case for greater preferential treatment for the Northern region, and for development areas as a whole, than the Government are so far specifying, despite the eloquent and vociferous South-East lobby. Bearing in mind the Conservative Party's election manifesto and the promise to adopt a strong regional policy, we should reflect on developments so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby referred to the policy changes on the redesignation of special development areas and the crippling effect on industrial development in the Northern region because of the lifting of restrictions on industrial development certificates. The reduction of industrial incentives in the Northern region will be approximately one-third of the present level by 1981. Inmos took an unforgivable decision. The Northern region worked prodigiously in order to secure the siting of the production unit in the North. The time is opportune now, not in six months' or two years' time, to announce the location of the next production unit and to redeem the promise made by the previous Labour Government that the units would be sited in development areas. We would have been less unhappy if the unit had been sited in Scotland, Wales or even Merseyside rather than Bristol. The Government must intervene in such important policy issues. They have an inescapable responsibility to the development areas. I turn briefly to recent decisions that have been taken in the Department of Energy, not least the decision to site the first coal liquefaction plant in Wales rather than in the Northern coalfields. My hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Dormand) and I made extensive efforts to try to persuade both the Labour Government, before the election, and the incoming Conservative Government to site those plants in the Durham coalfield, but without success. I ask the Minister to consult his right hon and hon. Friends and to ensure that the Northern region is not forgotten when further decisions are made on the siting of such plants. I refer to the influence of the British Steel Corporation on regional policy, and I permit myself the luxury of a brief reference to the present strike. I suggest to the Government that the decision by BSC to offer a derisory 2 per cent. to the steel workers was provocative. By doing so, it deliberately precipitated the strike, which is having and will continue to have a grave and damaging effect on the economy, as well as on unemployment in the Northern region. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) will enlarge on that. Sir Charles Villiers appears to be comfortably wearing the mantle of a voluntary disciple of the Government's free enterprise system in his policy of import- ing coking coal. There is a case for Government intervention in that policy. Ultimately, thousands of jobs in the coal mining industry will be at risk, not least in my constituency, if the BSC is allowed to continue with that seriously damaging policy. It does so on the pretext that there is some justification for importing coking coal for quality reasons and for mixing with indigenous coal. There can be little justification for extending those imports on the basis of the price argument. The National Coal Board has always bought and continues to buy its steel from the British Steel Corporation. I cannot see why the BSC does not buy British coal rather than importing it from abroad, especially as a fairly paltry sum of £20 million would be required as a subsidy towards the coal industry. The callous disregard of the Government in failing to intervene in this area will mean that eventually serious damage will be done to the coal industry as we know it at present. I suggest to the Minister that a subsidy even of this small proportion would be nothing in comparison with the figure of about £290 million by which the West German Government subsidise their coal industry. The construction industry presents a very gloomy picture. There is very low activity. Hon. Members are in receipt of correspondence from all sections of the construction industry. We are quite properly reminded that the industry is always the first to be hit by economic recession and always the last to recover when the economy begins to improve. Thousands of building workers are on the dole. Priceless skills are being wasted and lost. Some of these workers will never return to the construction industry. In the midst of all this, the Government's housing policy, among other things, appears to be based solely upon the sale of council houses. Intolerable problems will be created for local authorities if they are to be forced to sell council houses. The policy will not produce an extra brick. It will not produce an extra job for a bricklayer or for any other person wishing to practise his skills in the construction industry. In the civil engineering section of the industry, with the Kielder reservoir and other projects rapidly reaching conclusion and the Tyneside metro in its final stages, there is little, if anything, of a substantial nature available to absorb vital resources which are at present lying unused in the industry. I reinforce the call made at the Dispatch Box by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby for the establishment of a northern development agency. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) about fragmentation. I say now what I said at least 15 months ago—that what the Northern region needs as much as and perhaps more than anything else is co-ordination. A northern development agency is surely as important to the Northern region—with the highest unemployment rate of the whole country, including all the development areas—as is an agency to Scotland or to Wales. It would at least provide the opportunity for co-ordinating resources in the Northern region in regard to procurement and the relocation of industry to the general advantage of the region. The setting up of such an agency is the declared policy of the Labour Party. I have no doubt that had we won the election in May last year the agency would have been set up by now. The Conservative Party's pledge to pursue a strong regional policy has so far meant nothing. There is nothing that we can see at present or in terms of future developments to justify the use of the pledge in the Conservative manifesto last May. The Conservatives have said from time to time that they are better at playing this game than we are, but all the evidence is contrary to that. This is the time at which the Government should redeem that pledge. They should pursue a strong regional policy, especially as there is a quite distinct two-nation syndrome in this country. The Northern region did not vote for a Conservative Government, and the Northern region will continue to reject the negative regional policies so far embarked upon by a Government who apparently do not recognise the real depth and seriousness of the problems with which we are confronted.4.34 pm
When the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott)addressed the House, he rightly pointed out that, as we all know, there are long-standing problems in the Northern region. When the hon. Gentleman went on to contrast the performances of Labour and Tory Governments, it was almost as if his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury just before Christmas, in presenting the public expenditure Estimates, had not announced that the Government were organising for increased unemployment.
By the very nature of the Northern region's long-standing problems, it is bound to be more seriously hit than any other region in the country. At the last general election, Labour candidates throughout the Northern region pointed out that the election of a party that was standing on the manifesto that the Tory Party was then putting before the country would result in the turning of the Northern region into an industrial wasteland. In the eight months which have passed since then, every word that we said has already proved to be absolutely right. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate so far has referred to my constituency. In that election, I especially pointed out that the election of a Tory Government would mean the closing down of the Consett steelworks. Exactly as I forecast, the works is to be closed, with devastating consequences for the very fabric of life in an entire community. I propose to devote the remainder of my short speech to indicating that that is an indefensible action.I take the serious point that my hon. Friend is making. With regard to the closure of the Consett steelworks and other major closures in the Northern region, is he aware that there are no fewer than eight Conservative Members representing seats in the Northern region and yet only the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) is present?
My hon. Friend is right in drawing attention to the attendance in the Chamber.
I should like to resume the point that I was making about Consett. It is a town that is totally dependent on one industry, and 3,700 steel workers will be put out of work. But, in addition to the 3,700, several thousand other people will be put out of work in industries and occupations totally dependent on the steel industry in the town. The Secretary of State for Industry was in the North-East on Saturday, and he made a point of saying that Consett is in a special development area and, therefore, it can attract grants. But the fact is that Consett has been in a special development area ever since an earlier Labour Government invented the concept of special development areas. In my constituency, even before the fatal steel industry closure, 15,000 coal mining jobs had disappeared because of the running down of the mining industry. That was why it was made a special development area. Yet, even with the maximum available inducements for the establishment of new industries, only about one new job has been created for every five that have been lost. I put the point positively that there must be far greater Government support in improved communications and in the provision of sites and factory buildings. It is ludicrous that at present there are just two small factories under construction in an area that is facing such industrial devastation. If the whole area is not to become derelict, much more assistance must be given in order to help the area to help itself. The resources locally are totally inadequate to deal with a problem of such magnitude without outside support. There is another aspect of the matter that needs to be stressed. The thousands of people who are to be deprived of their livelihoods are all taxpayers. By destroying their livelihood, the Government are depriving the country of tax revenue. By closing the steel plant, they are depriving the county and district councils of millions of pounds of rate revenue. The consequence must be either huge increases in rates or huge cuts in essential public services. All this is being done in the name of a Government who are hypocritically purporting to be protecting taxpayers and ratepayers. It is even worse than it sounds, because the consequences are that, in place of all this loss of public revenue, there will be an increase in public expenditure on a vast scale in redundancy payments, unemployment pay and social security payments in general. As I have said, there is no justification for any of this, because what is being shut down is not an old, unproductive plant which is running at a loss but, on the contrary, a highly modern plant where tens of millions of pounds have been spent on modernisation, and where 2,500 jobs have already been done away with, with the full co-operation of the trade unions and the work force. The result of all that exercise—which, of itself, has been a traumatic experience in an area which is so heavily dependent upon one industry—is a pattern of high productivity and rising profitability. Productivity expressed as metric tonnes per man year is at least 100 tonnes above the British average and it is as good as any and better than most anywhere in the whole of Europe. Following the conclusion of the exercise of demanning and modernisation, in the last four months of 1979 the profits made at the works were running at a rate of a rising £2 million a year. The steel workers of Consett were given specific promises. They were told "Increase productivity, reduce the labour force, and the future will be assured." They responded magnificently to that call. The result is that they have been rewarded with betrayal. It is not only the betrayal of steel workers. It is the betrayal of an entire community. How dare the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry stand at the Dispatch Box, as he did last Thursday, and accuse my constituents of trying to get something for nothing? How dare he say that increased productivity is intensely in the interests of the workers when, where they have so co-operated, this is the response they have received? How dare he come to the North-East, as he did on Saturday, and say "Let the people of Consett decide their own future, the Government will help" when, having already sacrificed so much to help themselves, they have been rewarded with betrayal on a scale that amounts to sheer depravity? Time is pressing, and I shall conclude my remarks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thonaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said, there is in Consett a very severe situation, but it is only a reflection of what is happening in the Northern region as a whole as a result of the Government's unworkable monetarist theories. The Government are a disaster for Consett. They are a disaster for the Northern region. They are a disaster and, indeed, a growing danger to the whole country.
I call the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee).
rose—
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate, the occupant of the Chair asked hon. Members to be very brief in their speeches. My hon. Friends have been brief. This debate concerns the problems of the Northern region. The constituency of the hon. Member you have just called to speak is not even in the region. Would it not be a scandal if that hon. Member were to take precious time in a half-day debate to contribute to the debate?
As the hon. Member knows, the Chair tries to maintain an even balance, and I think that my predecessor in the Chair called two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches. I think that he was trying to keep the balance. It is not unfair to call an hon. Member from the Government Benches, even if he does not happen to represent part of the area.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to pursue this matter, but I made a point in an intervention, when my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) was speaking, in which I said that there were eight Conservative Members representing seats in the Northern region. I wish to put the record straight. There are, in fact, nine Conservative Members who represent such seats. Three of them are Ministers, and not one of those Ministers has had the decency to attend to listen to at least the opening speeches. I think that it is quite monstrous that the Chair should select speakers from regions other than the Northern region.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point of order will be noted. We are wasting the time of hon. Members who wish to speak.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that you were in the Chair when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) observed that in the past he had had to filibuster on occasions such as this because it was not possible to keep a balance with so few Conservative Members in the region. He said that he had no need to do so today because others were available on the Government Benches. I hope that that point has been brought to your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition spokesman broadened the debate to include the Lake District and the Pennines. We read the Order Paper very carefully. It does not say "the Northern economic planning area". It refers to the Northern area—which is anywhere north of Watford.
The Chair will bear in mind what has been said and will exercise its discretion to make sure that those who should be involved in this debate are called to speak.
4.45 pm
I appreciate that in a debate on the Northern region the majority of speeches will naturally be oriented towards the North-East. Nevertheless, I have always accepted that Lancashire is part of the Northern region. Indeed, by the definition of the right hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), who spoke of there being two halves to the country, the North and the South. I and my constituency fall within that northern half. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity of making a few remarks in the debate.
Labour Members are totally obsessed by grants, development agencies and Government subsidies. What they fail to realise is that the majority of businesses are essentially created by the drive, initiative and effort of one man, or possibly two men. It may well be that as a particular business develops it is sold out to a larger group and perhaps becomes a branch or subsidiary of that group. It may well be that its local connection tends to wither somewhat. Nevertheless, businesses that are created in particular regions retain a connection with those regions. I am glad that the present Government's policy is directed towards helping the areas and the regions in the most need. I am conscious that my constituency has lost its intermediate are status. I emphasise that, although we have lost that status, we want to see two things. First, we want to see the continuance of derelict site grants when our regional aid is phased out in 1982. Secondly—and this is most important for all of the Northern region—we want to see good communications. I mention specifically the M65 motorway, which is crucial to the development of north-east Lancashire. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and one or two other hon. Members have talked about small businesses. One of the encouraging features of the economy at present is the rate at which small factory units are being taken up. I am pleased that the present Government are encouraging the smaller business. I remind the House again of a survey which was carried out in America fairly recently, covering a recent decade. That found that about two-thirds of the new jobs which had been created were created by firms employing fewer than 20 people. Steel, shipbuilding and coal have been mentioned. I want to talk about a predominantly regional industry—the textile industry. In the textile industry—this also has some application to the North-East—we are getting a textile mill closure virtually every other day. Only a fortnight ago we had a major Courtaulds closure—the Stanroyd mill in Colne, in my constituency. I draw the attention of the House to a letter which I received within the last few days from one of the ablest younger textile men in the industry. He writes that the textile industry isIt is a tragedy that an industry like the textile industry, which has such good labour relations, which has improved productivity and has substantially reinvested and re-equipped, is not getting the support that it deserves. We have a massive and over-inflated public sector, and we on the Government Benches are concerned to decrease it. While it is so substantial, we need a positive policy to buy British in the interests of the nation as a whole, and particularly the Northern region, which would give manufacturers, particularly of textiles, the benefit of long runs of a product line. Rising unemployment in the regions, particularly where there is a significant minority community, provides fertile ground for extremism, whether of the Left or the Right. In Nelson and Colne within the past week we have for the first time been subjected to a considerable leafletting campaign by the National Front, which is a most unpleasant start to the 1980s."currently going through the worst crisis that I can ever remember. Not only is domestic consumption at an all time low, but also imports are coming in on an ever increasing scale. I fear that 1980 will show a list of casualties in our industry from which we may not recover.…Altogether the picture is very distressing."
4.50 pm
The debate on the problems of the Northern region has been continuing over the past half century. One of my predecessors, the late Joe Batey, in the latter part of the 1920s, talked about unemployment in West Durham and the problems of the mining industry. Between 1919 and 1939, 1½ million people left Scotland, Wales and the Northern region—and I mean the Northern region that we are debating today—for the more affluent parts of the country, the South and the Midlands.
During my lifetime, unemployment in our area has always been more than twice the national average. For example, in 1935the male unemployment rate in West Durham stood at 51 per cent., while in London it was 4 per cent., so the gap between the North and South has always existed. I shall not make the speech that I prepared and go into details of incentives, but I wish to make a political speech, which is unusual for me. I tell the Minister and the Government that the situation in the Northern region is unacceptable. During the war, the coalition Government considered the kind of society that we wanted after the war, and they came to the firm conclusion that it was economically sensible and socially just to iron out the gap between the regions. After the war, as a nation—and not just one political party—we were determined to have a vigorous regional policy which would stop the population drift and give those who were growing up in every region equal access to the necessities of life and those things that contribute to its quality. We determined that we would no longer tolerate the breaking up of communities and the destruction of family life that unemployment brought to the Northern region in the 1920s and 1930s. In the old days decent men and women were treated as semi-criminals because they were unemployed and poor, and we hoped to end all that. Since the war, successive Governments, with varying degrees of success and of enthusiasm, at least followed that policy—and the visit of Lord Hailsham, which has been referred to, is an indication that it was a policy followed by all Governments. I am concerned about the growing feeling in the Northern region that the Government have turned their backs on that policy and on the people in the Northern region. Economic reality is important, but in the Northern region we are sick and tired of being lectured from the Conservative Front Bench about economic reality. We have lived with economic reality throughout our lives and know that we cannot have an economically successful nation if social justice is ignored. As my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) said, the obsession with a monetary policy and market forces has led the Government to forget social justice. A regional policy is not a short-term expedient. It has to be a continuing and integral part of Government policy. We know from experience that it is necessary to run hard in order to stand still where job creation is concerned. I put it to the Minister in this way. On Saturday I addressed some men in their middle fifties, who had left school at 14 and gone straight to the pits. In those days there was no security and plenty of unemployment, and some of them have worked in four different pits. They have been made redundant and had to move. There was no unrest. They moved. They then went to the textile industry and have been made redundant yet again. Those men cannot be accused of being militant, and there have been no bad industrial relations or complaints of low productivity They are decent, hard-working, law-abiding men, who are anxious to contribute to the national good as well as provide for their families. What does the Minister think their reaction is when they hear the Prime Minister talking of the work-shy syndrome? How does he think that such men react to the Secretary of State for Industry, who talks blandly about "the British disease" and people in my constituency who "want something for nothing"? We are not here with the begging bowl; far from it. The Northern region has a great deal to contribute to the well-being of the nation. We have a good work force. We have the ability to make a contribution, and all that we ask is the opportunity to make it. As a sad commentary on society in 1980, on Saturday a man who has spent his life in local government said to me "People like me are law-abiding and believe in law and order and democracy, but we have come to the conclusion that the only language this Government understand is that of violence. They only listen to stones thrown through a window or the people who go out on the streets." That is a sad commentary. I assure the Minister that the people of the Northern region are law abiding, but there is growing cynicism that is leading to bitterness and anger. We believe that the policy followed by successive Governments is being sabotaged by this Government. I warn the Minister and the Government that our people will not tolerate a return to the situation that we accepted in the 1920s and 1930s, when communities were destroyed and families broken up. I want to hear from the Minister that the Government have a positive commitment to a vigorous regional policy. The economic well-being of the nation that we all seek can be achieved only if all sides of industry are given the opportunity, and the Government's actions, for example, over Inmos, are convincing our people that the Government do not have the necessary commitment. However, if we are given the opportunity to work out our own prosperity and preserve the way of life in which we believe, we shall respond.4.59 pm
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on his forceful speech with which, I think, there was widespread agreement. There was scarcely anything in his remarks with which I disagreed and I am grateful to him for referring to some of the problems that we face in the Alnwick and Amble district. Indeed, I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman only when he spoke about a North-East development agency. It would have been better if such a project had been undertaken by the previous Labour Government when we had many Northern Labour Members who could have put their weight behind it. We did not get it from that Government and it comes ill to have so much emphasis placed on it now.
I represent the northernmost part of the Northern region and it lies north of a great deal of Scotland. We face all the problems that we feel get closer attention from Governments when they occur on the other side of the border. We have experienced a massive cutback in regional aid, with the withdrawal of all development area assistance from the Berwick area and all but the most nominal aid, ultimately, from the Alnwick and Amble area, which has an unemployment rate of well over 8 per cent. That has not been merely a paper transaction. We have seen the effects of the Government turning their backs on our area. The practical effects have been demonstrated in our attempts to secure the siting of a major project in the Alnwick area. An international company wanted to site its pharmaceutical research headquarters in Alnwick, and we hope that the project will still come to us, but the fight has become much more difficult since regional grants were withdrawn. That company's major investment programme was based on regional aid that it expected to receive. It had alternative opportunities to site that project in other European countries and was offered substantial inducements to do so. We hope that we shall get the project in Alnwick and that we shall get more Government co-operation and specific assistance for it. The episode is a practical illustration that the withdrawal of development aids will make it much harder to get industry into our region. It might not be so bad for us if the system of regional aid had been completely abandoned. Other areas would have had reason to complain, but we in the north of Northumberland can see that development aids are still available for areas that are more prosperous and are provided with more jobs than is our area. Even within our own county, we see that areas, such as Cramlington, which have already had substantial investment, and prosperous suburban areas such as Ponteland and Darras Hall, on the outskirts of Newcastle, have substantial development aid that is not available to our area, which has severe unemployment and special problems. When we look over the border, we see the strongly financed and strongly supported Scottish Development Agency which has considerable powers to attract the very industries that we may be trying to secure for our area. We have considerable reason to be grateful for the industrial development programmes of the Development Commission and its daughter organisation the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. They have been of enormous help to us in the rural parts of the Northern region and we want that help to continue. It is remarkable that there should still be an element of suspicion about whether the Government regard those bodies as quangos which should be axed or as bodies doing a worthwhile job which should be maintained. It is time that we had a firm announcement that they are to continue their work, which they do economically and which is particularly helpful to small business and industry. We want to be assured that finance for that work will continue to be available. The abandonment of development aid for areas that badly need it might be easier to understand if the Government had succeeded in creating the different industrial climate upon which they base their case for making a change. The nub of the Government's case is that by removing development aid, by other fiscal measures and by their general handling of the economy they will create a climate in which business, large and small, will prosper. I would be hard put to find any business man in the Northern region who believed that we were anywhere near that position. The existence of 20 per cent. interest rates is a clear demonstration that we are a long way from that position, even if the Government have it in their power to create it. The Government cannot escape the blame for 20 per cent. interest rates. They are, in large part, the product of a high inflation rate, but the Government are not prepared to tackle inflation by means of an incomes policy. The faults of the previous Administration may have been numerous, but one thing on which we were prepared to support it was on incomes policy through which it was able drastically to reduce the level of inflation and to hold down interest rates. The abandonment of that policy will make life difficult for small businesses and will make it impossible to create a climate in which business can prosper in the absence of the aids that the region has previously received. The effects of many other Government policies make it difficult for industry to prosper in a region such as ours. The Northern region has substantial urban areas, but also massive rural areas. The region stretches from Berwick on the North-East coast of England to Westmorland and the southern shores beyond the Lake District. In that huge area there are massive problems of rural depopulation and unemployment. Many policies will bear hard upon those problems. For example, the Government's plans to charge for transport for children who live a long way from school will have a major impact on firms trying to attract or keep labour in rural areas. Think of the impact of that policy on agriculture, for example, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The more that agriculture reduces its labour force, the more serious will be our unemployment problems in rural areas. Who will be able to afford to stay on industrial and agricultural wages in rural areas if they have to pay substantial sums to get their children to school? If the Government decide to leave no discretion to rural local authorities over the sale of council houses and make no provision to keep a number of council houses in our villages, what will happen to the employees of small businesses in rural areas? The only houses that will be available will be those that are snapped up at high prices for second homes and retirement homes by people with far more money than those employees. All those problems affect the infrastructure upon which industry and new businesses in rural areas depend. If the Government do not look at their policies in the light of their impact on attempts to foster industry and business in our rural areas, their efforts, few as they are, will be in vain. Hon. Members have referred to the need for training and re-training in skills for industries in the region, yet we find that the Government propose to close the very institutions that have been created to do that work. Skillcentres in Darlington and Mary port are scheduled for closure and an announcement is expected later this month on that subject. Surely we should be trying to maintain and expand those facilities and to make them available to those who are beyond the travelling distance to some of the existing re-training facilities. All these infrastructure issues are crucial to us. Basic problems are involved. For example, we have had difficulties in my constituency because of under-investment in the telephone network in some of the more outlying areas where industrial estates have been built. In Berwick delays in telephone connections have been considerable. Firms have also been unable to obtain Telex connections. Such facilities are needed if one is trying to build up industrial estates that include many small firms trading in an international market. The Government cannot ignore the importance of such problems that they may regard as trifling. We need specific aids to bring business into areas with substantial unemployment, and those aids should not have been abandoned by the Government. We need a more coherent approach to small business which has had shattered expectations. Many small business men were taken in by the impression given by the Conservatives in opposition that there would be a tremendous change in the climate for small businesses. That has not happened. We need a realisation that every aspect of Government policy can have an impact on our problems. People in the Northern region notice that Governments are keen to offload their problems on to regions such as ours, but less keen to provide benefits. When it comes to finding somewhere to dump nuclear waste or to locate installations that no one else wants, the North-East is thought a suitable place, but when it comes to providing aid, a different approach is displayed. People in the region are prepared to work if they can see the prospect of a reasonable result. That willingness needs some backing. In terms of industrial prosperity, the social problems that would exist if the North-East were, in effect, closed down would be massive. The effect of trying to absorb in our cities in the South and the Midlands populations who would do a very much better job if they were given the opportunity in their own region would be appalling. I see no reason why we should go on creating problems of that kind.5.10 pm
Any opportunity for a debate on the Northern region is welcome, and so it is today.
I suppose that it was inevitable that the approach of the Opposition should be characterised by their choice of subject—I would rather have chosen "The skills and available opportunities for new industries in the Northern region". We have had five years of Labour Government. Looking back over that five years, we see that we are where we were when we set out originally. The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) gave us a catalogue of requests for aid and Government intervention. I found that list depressing, because we have been along that road once before. We found ourselves with a depressing list of problems, and they have been aired in this debate. We have to turn our minds to the task of talking not in the past or even of today but about how we meet the future in the Northern region. We tend to dwell all too readily on the problems rather than on the positive elements for success. Success means employment. Employment and success mean wealth creation, and more employment and higher standards of living. The debate surely must be about that equation and how we bring about the beginnings of success. Inevitably, in these debates we tend to draw on our experiences in our constituencies. People say to me very quickly "It is all right for you. Harrogate has only a 3·5 per cent. unemployment figure, whereas the figure for the whole of the Northern region is 8·5 per cent." There the conversation tends to stop, except that the other person will go on to talk about his unemployment, his industrial decline, the past glories of great enterprises, and what a dismal future he can paint for the area that he represents. I think that he should look at the success of Harrogate and realise that there is a lesson to be learnt, a lesson that is illustrated by the success of the town and the industries in it. People come to Harrogate who have made businesses, who have worked in successful businesses and who are proud of their success. We have a number of industries in Harrogate which range from steel fabrication, clothing, chemicals, food preparation and laboratories, to the construction industry. We have some of the big firms, such as Dunlopillo and ICI Fibres Research, and the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Ministry of Defence. The lesson here is that we have a diverse range of industries, covering all sectors. I suggest that they are all successful companies in their respective areas of business. Harrogate itself has built a reputation as a conference centre. This has been done by the minds of people of distinction who decided that the town—"The problems of the Northern region."
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it relevant to a debate on the Northern region to have a tour of Harrogate, which is not in the Northern region at all?
I understand that the Harrogate area is connected with one of the industrial organisations, and I am certain that it is quite relevant to refer to it in this debate. Most of us in Lancashire think that anywhere east of the Pennines is North or North-East.
The conference centre being built in Harrogate today is not being built with Government or EEC aid; it is being built purely and simply with money provided by Harrogate. Many people say that Harrogate's success has been achieved in spite of Government aid to other areas.
The lesson is that we have to attract new and young companies. When a large company goes out of business, many people are thrown into unemployment, and it takes a very long time for new companies to arrive at a position where they can employ the number of people who have been made unemployed. To do this requires a progressive attitude by local authorities so that they make quick decisions to capture the enthusiasm of people who wish to start up new enterprises. That means that they must be able to give quick planning decisions so that those enterprises can be made to get off the ground. Local authorities also have to create a good environment. That is a matter of course, anyway, especially in our Northern cities. But what is important is EEC aid and how it is applied. It is important that some of that aid is channelled towards creating a better working environment and a smarter area for people to live in. I should like to see that applied to our Northern cities. A town or a city survives on its reputation, and that reputation depends on the human element. That human element is a willingness to work not just for the wages but for the satisfaction of building a new company or keeping up the standards of a long-established firm. This is a true element of success. It depends not only on the boss but on the unions involved. The boss can frustrate the work force by unreasonable demands and stinginess over pay. The unions can frustrate management over manning levels for new machines and procrastination over overtime for important orders, and so on. These are the makings of decline and the road towards less competitiveness, stagnation, disillusionment and probably eventual closure when taken to its limit. If this debate has any influence at all, let it influence management to inform and to knit their people together. Let it influence unions to move to modern technology, to move with change and to co-operate in achieving more productivity so that, with success, there is profit and high wages. I recall that in Sweden recently, where there is a wages policy, the Government announced a wage increase of 10 per cent. for the coming year. The unions did their sums. They went to the Government and said that on their calculations the best that the Government could afford was 8 per cent., bearing in mind inflation and the need to keep the real value of wages. That is a lesson that I have yet to find in this country. We have yet to see unions going to managements and saying "The company made a loss last year. Therefore we, together with management, must keep wages to a reasonable level." I happen not to believe in pay policies. I think that they lead to lowered expectations and the lowered recognition of skills and that they sap initiative and the will for expansion. In my view, that is one of the reasons for the position in which we find our economy today. A number of references have been made to Government aid. I should prefer to see Government aid to the regions removed altogether, and instead a concentration on incentives to people to build new companies and lower personal taxes. We also have to seek to remove bureaucracy and some of the oppressive legislation that is bearing down on some of the smaller companies and frustrating peoples' willingness to use their time to get their firms under way.Has the hon. Gentleman stopped to consider the number of companies exhibiting in the Harrogate trade fairs throughout the year which rely on Government grants and Government intervention not only in some cases to keep them going but in many cases for their starting-up operations? Does he wish to ignore that factor completely in a debate which is precious to hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Northern region and who desire to speak about matters of importance and not nonsense of this kind?
Indeed, I do. I should like to see us move to a time when we have no aid to any of the regions. I am not isolating the Northern region; I am talking about all the regions. This aid to all the different regions merely warps the issue. If there were no aid, people would decide where the skills were and where the chances of employing the right people for their industries lay and the sort of environment that they could offer their workers. That is the simple message, and I do not see the relevance of the number of people who come to Harrogate to exhibit their goods.
Without them, a lot of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be unemployed.
But I think that there is a case for Government assistance in the form of research grants. It was interesting for me to visit a factory in Japan that had promoted the use of robots, now beginning to be used in industry. The firm started with a Government grant, which had continued for about nine years. As a result, it was a success and became one of the leading firms in Japan. It is not easy for small and medium-sized firms to raise money for detailed technological research. Large firms find the money out of their own pockets. There is a case, when economic circumstances permit, for the Government encouraging medium-sized firms to invest in research.
In the past we have relied on major industries in the North for our defence. We shall no doubt have to do so again. We depend on the shipbuilding industry. The defence cuts over the last five years have had a major impact on the shipbuilding industries in the North-East. I deplore this. It is essential that we maintain a strong and effective Navy. That is required as a matter of urgency now. I believe that the time will come when we shall have to go back to the shipbuilders and ask them to build ships in record time. Given that confrontation, I believe that the industry will respond as in the past. But the war that has to be fought now is for economic survival. I believe that the North has the skill and the ability to respond, but the region needs the incentive and the backing of the Government, in the sense that they back people with initiative and those who come to terms with the situation. In this way, we shall succeed.5.22 pm
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who made such a good speech in opening the debate.
I come from, and represent, a constituency that still bears the scars and memories of the 1930s. What I see today is similar to what was seen in the 1930s, when many regions, such as the North, were turned into industrial deserts by the policies of the Government of the time. In 1931 the steelworks at Jarrow closed, throwing 3,000 men out of work. Now we have the closure of the steelworks at Consett. In 1935 the shipyards in Jarrow closed, throwing 5,000 men on the scrap-heap. Today many shipbuilding communities face the same threat. In the 1930s there was the same obsession about public expenditure cuts. Unemployment benefit was reduced from 17s to 15s. Today we have the clamour for taxes on short-term benefits and the stopping of indexation. In 1936 members of a deputation from my home town of Jarrow who went to see the then President of the Board of Trade, Walter Runciman, were told to go back and work out their own salvation. On Saturday evening the Secretary of State for Industry told a meeting in Newcastle "It's up to you". The philosophy of the 1930s is found in the present Government. We have had 40 years of regional policy in various forms. Over the years we have had a mixture of stick and carrot, the stick in terms of IDCs and the carrot in the form of regional grants. Under various Governments the sticks have got either bigger or smaller and the carrots have varied in length. The present Government have reduced the size of the stick by taking the restriction off IDCs for factories of up to 50,000 sq. ft., and they have shortened the length of the carrot by taking £230 million out of regional development. If the intention of regional policy was to achieve economic parity, it has been a dismal failure, certainly in the North. In fairness to the Government, it must be said that unemployment has not arisen since May last year. It has existed for many years in the Northern region. The policy of the Government has not helped the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I represent constituencies covering the area of the South Tyneside district council, the biggest single employer in the area. Seventy per cent. of local government expenditure is accounted for by wages and salaries. Any proposed cut in public expenditure will hit such areas, which already have a high unemployment percentage. The raising of minimum lending rate will hit businesses, certainly small businesses, in the North. The terminal grant for shipbuilders, to be withdrawn in 15 months' time, will again hit constituencies such as mine that rely to a great extent on shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering. The end of exchange controls and the dismantling of controls over international industry, in so far as they ever existed, will accelerate branch factory closures from which the North has suffered for a long time. There is an old saying that if there is an economic chill we in the North catch double pneumonia. That is true. The male unemployment rate in my constituency is 16 per cent. and rising I do not like quoting percentages too often. I have been one of that percentage. If one is in the dole queue and 100 per cent. unemployed, it is no comfort to be tapped on the shoulder and told that one is one of 14 per cent. unemployed this week compared with one of 15 per cent. the previous week. If one is unemployed, one is 100 per cent. unemployed. Between May and November last year, over a thousand redundancies in my constituency were notified to the Department of Employment. A major blow, to which my hon. Friends have referred, is that the Inmos production unit will be going to a non-assisted area despite the promise of the previous Government. I consider the worst aspect of industrial recession to be youth unemployment. This is destroying the seed corn of our future. Society is denying young people a job before they have had an opportunity to prove their worth. The previous Government achieved much in preparing the unemployed young people for work in various schemes under the Manpower Services Commission. By guaranteeing that young people would have a job, a training place or a place in further education, they did much to help young people. It is unbelievable that the present Government intend to cut back this type of expenditure. In the South Tyneside district, 858 youngsters between 16 and 18 are unemployed. Of those, 408 have been in employment and 450 are school leavers who have never had a job. There are 885 youngsters taking part in the job opportunities programme. The district possesses the smallest percentage of 16-year-olds staying at school and the smallest percentage of16-year-olds taking full-time courses in further education. In areas of low wages and high unemployment, youngsters have to leave school in order to sign on the dole and get supplementary benefit. It is no good people complaining about vandalism and anti-social behaviour of the young when this is en- couraged by increasing youth unemployment and denying young people jobs and education. I should like the Government to introduce mandatory grants for 16-year-olds staying on at school or college, as promised by the last Government. They should increase, not decrease, the youth opportunities programme. They should increase, not decrease, the STEP programme and make more, not less, money available for manpower services in special development areas. As there is limited time for this debate, I shall close with the advice that I gave to the Government in my maiden speech. The youth of the day are not so steeped in democracy that they will accept the solutions of the 1930s to the problems of the 1980s.5.29 pm
I want to concentrate my opening remarks on my constituency, which, as a result of closure after closure in the past 12 months or so, has become almost a disaster area. We had the closure of the Tress engineering works, with the loss of 330 jobs, and then, last September, the closure of the Vickers Scots-wood plant, with the loss of 750 jobs.
Major closures such as those arouse major interest, but alongside them we had the closure of the little Pye factory, the back-street bakery employing 12, 15 or 17 people. In areas such as ours, the multiplication of the dozen jobs lost here and the 15 or 25 there amounts to more human misery, and we already have plenty of it. In addition, we have problems with other major plants, such as Vickers at Elswick. The problem there is caused by the Government's indecision over the order for 77 Chieftain tanks, war maintenance reserve tanks for the British Army of the Rhine. It has nothing to do with Iran, so I do not want the Minister to give that excuse. Because of the indecision of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere, there has been no confirmation of the order, and now Vickers defence division at Elswick, with 1,600 men, is seriously threatened. It would be a mortal blow to heavy engineering on Tyneside if, following the closure of Tress and Vickers Scotwood, Vickers at Elswick should go. It would be a disaster for the area, one that we cannot contemplate. Let us look at the social consequences of the closures. A year after the closure of the Tress factory, 100 of the men concerned were still unemployed. When a man has been unemployed for 12 months or more, he must suffer a serious loss of morale and may well need the services of a rehabilitation centre. But, at the diktat of this despicable Government—I use the word "despicable" advisedly in relation to regional policy—the Manpower Services Commission is cutting out 33 per cent. of the places in rehabilitation centres which give people the confidence, after long periods of unemployment, to face new jobs that we hope will be waiting round the corner for them. Part of the immorality of the closure of skillcentres and rehabilitation centres is in the fact that the instructors in them are highly skilled tradesmen, who in the main are very dedicated. I think of one of my own constituents who is very dedicated and motivated by the desire to do something for his underprivileged brethren. He left a highly paid job in skilled engineering to go to a rehabilitation centre as an instructor. There is no question of his looking for a soft number. He went there because he was properly motivated. We shall lose the skills of such well-motivated people, who can do that job for people who have had the misfortune to be unemployed for long periods. Small businesses have been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) made an admirable contribution. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who is to reply to the debate, is responsible for small businesses. The Government gained power on a prospectus of doing a great deal for the small person and the small business. With interest rates at 17 per cent., we must ask what will happen to the small business. I have referred to the loss of 17 jobs in one place and 15 in another. I have ample evidence of this sort of thing in my constituency. It has happened in recent weeks because small businesses cannot face paying 21 per cent., 22 per cent. and 23 per cent. for the money they need in order to keep going. Only last week I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about one small firm in my constituency employing 18 people. That firm is in the insulation business, which is badly needed these days. Because of the tightness of money, it is a month behind with its tax payments. I have seen its tax returns and know that it has been paying steadily month by month, though because it is a month in arrears the Inland Revenue has withdrawn its tax exemption certificate. I hope that the Chief Secretary will get his finger out on this matter, otherwise 18 more people will be made redundant. It would be a complete injustice if that happened simply because the firm was a month in arrears.That is not an isolated case. There are many such cases, and there is also evidence of increases in bankruptcies. That is the Government's policy on small businesses.
I fully accept what my hon. Friend says.
I turn briefly to the construction industry. In the Northern region the major schemes, such as the Tyneside metro scheme, the Tyneside sewerage scheme, the Keilder water scheme and the British Steel Corporation plant at Redcar, are all drawing to a conclusion. We must have major schemes to take over from them. Without such schemes, there will be further massive redundancies in the construction industry. Instead of cutting £200 million off the roads programme, why do not the Government bring forward the Newcastle city western bypass, the Newcastle city inner ring road, the Redheugh bridge scheme and bypasses along the line of the A69 across to Cumbria from Newcastle, where many of the villages suffer misery caused by heavy traffic thundering through day and night? In an area such as the Northern region, which has for many years suffered more than its fair share of environmental deprivation, it is reasonable to say that we should have a higher rather than a lower level of investment, but the reverse is happening in construction. Between 1970 and 1978, we in the Northern region suffered a decline of 33 per cent., compared with a national drop of 23 per cent. The region is not getting its fair share of the little that is going at present. If the country is ever to regain a firm economic base, it must have an efficient construction industry. If the Government have any will to make regional policy work—and I make no secret of my belief that if the views of the guru from Leeds, the Secretary of State for Industry, are the Government's views, they have no will at all to make regional policy work; I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that to his face, and he did not deny it—How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the fact that the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have resulted in 80 per cent. of the population of the Northern region now falling within the assisted places category, which is more than any other region except Wales?
Because of the very fact that we have had such a raw deal, we want 100 per cent., as we had before, never mind 80 per cent.
If the Government really have any intent to have a regional policy, they could have a dual role, activating the economy in the regions by the use of the construction industry as I have suggested. It must make economic sense. After all is said and done, the supply side of the economy would be assisted because it is investment, not consumption. On 5 December, when we debated the Government's White Paper, I said that it could well have been entitled the crucifixion of the Northern region of England. I made no apology for saying it then. I underline that the crucifixion is going apace, as it has since the introduction of that White Paper.5.40 pm
I am grateful for the opportunity of being called in the debate, but I am not sure whether I have any status to address the House in the eyes of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should like clarification on that point, as some hon. Members are nodding and others are saying "No".
The interesting thing is that part of my constituency lies within Cumbria and part within Lancashire. That is what creates the anomaly. I see the hon. Member for White haven (Dr. Cunningham) nodding, as if to welcome me in making a contribution to the debate. I remind him that the part of my consti- tuency that lies within Cumbria also lies within the area of North-Western Industrial Development Association, as does the constituency of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Therefore, I take it that both the right hon. Gentleman and myself would be excluded from some northern development area if a future Labour Government sought to create one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I am glad to be corrected. It is important that these points should be understood. By making this point clear, I hope to demonstrate an important anomaly, which all these discussions create. The fact is that 60 per cent. of the electorate in my constituency are Lancashire people. The other 40 per cent., who are now Cumbrians, were Lancashire people, but when the county changes took place they became Cumbrian citizens. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) indicated that if there were a northern development area there would be cries for one for Yorkshire and Humberside. How right he is. There would be cries for one for Lancashire as well. Hon. Members, such as myself and my predecessor, have had to try to explain industrial development grants to the people of Lancashire who have not been able to obtain them. Last summer, before the Secretary of State's announcement about the change in status of regional industrial grants, Cumbrian citizens within my constituency had what was, and still is until August of next year, development area status. However, it is ultimately to become a non-assisted area. When that decision was made known to the Lancashire citizens of Morecambe, in my constituency, they felt most relieved about it. All these discussions about northern development areas and such like create enormous problems of this kind. Representing a constituency straddling two counties and bearing, as I properly do, pressures from constituents in two counties who write to me about these matters, I can see the difficulties created by policies of this kind. I wish to touch on another aspect of the debate, which concerns matters connected with Cumbria. I hope that the House will be reminded this afternoon that the announcement made last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment indicated a modest rise in the rate support grant that will go to the shire counties. Overall, an increase of 0·7 per cent. will accrue to the shire counties. I hope that Opposition Members who represent Cumbrian constituencies will recognise that fact when they make their contributions to the debate. There has been a suggestion that there should be a development area for the North. Those who advocate such things usually have no experience of business. I know several people in the Lancaster area who are extremely successful in attracting business to Lancashire. Those who know about business do not advocate a development area for the North. At best, it is an excuse for throwing money at the problem and not taking any action at all. At worst, it becomes a drain on public funds and a gross addition to an already overweighted bureaucracy.The hon. Gentleman referred to practising business men. I should point out that the northern CBI of practising business men very much supports this proposal.
I speak of those who are on a committee, which I attend, called the Lancaster Development Committee. Although it existed prior to the creation of the North-Western Industrial Development Association, it is now held under its auspices. The people who attract industry to Lancashire and are immensely successful are local business men, local chambers of commerce, active local councillors and the executive on the local authority. It does not need a nationally appointed development association to bring that about.
The real contribution that we can make to improve the situation of the North-West is to rely upon the institutions and activities that we already have. I mention the Lancaster Development Committee as an extremely successful body. I understand that it is not within the remit of the debate as Opposition Members see it, but such bodies have in the past made extremely helpful contributions. Rather than consider the creation of yet another bureaucratic institution, let us rely on those bodies that we already have.
5.47 pm
The debate has been remarkable for the number of Labour Members who have attended and for the number of Labour Members who have spoken and are to speak in it. That shows our great concern for the problems of the Northern region. The contrast between the Opposition and Government sides of the House has been glaring. We are not to have the Secretary of State to reply to the debate. The Government have sent the monkey, not the organ grinder. Very few Tory Members have spoken in the debate. Those who have spoken seem to be from Yorkshire or other parts outside the Northern region. Frankly, that shows the Tory lack of concern for the problems of the Northern region. I hope that this point will be taken up by the local press.
I want to deal with Inmos. I should like to remind the Minister why the Northern region requires Inmos. It is not just because of our high rate of unemployment, though we have the highest rate of unemployment of any region. The fact is that we need the new technologically-based industries if the North is to prosper in future. We were extremely pleased that the Labour Government were prepared to say that the production unit should go to a development area, and we had high hopes that it would come to the North. Therefore, we were bitterly disappointed by the decision—a decision basically made by the Government, because they give the industrial development certificates—to locate it in Bristol. That decision implies that Washington, where Inmos would have gone, is unable to attract management, that it does not have the high-quality housing that it in fact has and that the work force does not have the necessary skills. However, anybody who knows anything about the Northern region knows that it has the skills. In short, it is a complete slap in the face for the North.rose—
I shall not give way. In addition, the NEB is reneging on its regional commitments. It also shows that the Government are not serious about regional policy.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of Inmos, who was quoted in The Observer on Sunday, said that the big problem is in recruiting senior engineering and electronics staff because such staff will not go to the industrially depressed areas? Is not that a pointer that the next manufacturing unit might not go to the Northern region?
It is a pointer. The Minister is responsible, and he should certainly explain why Inmos did not go to the North.
I raise a further point. The Manpower Services Commission has been forced to cut back on its skillcentre budget because of public spending cuts. At a time of high unemployment, those budgets should be inviolate. The Government say that skillcentres at Darlington, and at Mary-port in Cumbria—an area of very high unemployment and a rehabilitation centre at Felling should be closed. I accept that it is difficult to place people who have benefited from the skillcentres in an area of high unemployment, but the unemployment is precisely why we need the skillcentres. It is a retrograde step to close them.Will the hon. Member give way?
I am not prepared to give way to frivolous interventions. The Government are going back on regional policies because of cynical opportunism. Given the election result, there are no votes in it and the Government have decided not to bother. If it is not cynical opportunism, it is ideological bias. I suspect that a bit of both is involved. It is the time for the Government to be sensible and to change their policies.
5.53 pm
The Northern region contains some of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, and I am surprised to hear that executives will not go to the area. They do not know what they are missing. I could wax eloquent about the Cumbrian mountains, Hadrian's Wall, the Cheviots and the beautiful coastline of Northumberland and Durham. Those remain areas of beauty simply because there is no Law of the jungle. We have strict planning controls and do not allow the free market to operate in those beautiful areas. That is why they remain beautiful and function so well.
The same must be applied to the North's industrial areas. For generations the North has supplied the power for the country. The North, Scotland and Wales supplied the coal for steam, built the ships and produced the steel. Now we are experiencing a change in technology and we are in increasing difficulty. If we leave it to the market forces, about which the Secretary of State so frequently talks, we shall be in for a severe time in the Northern region. The people will not stand for the conditions that prevailed in the 1920s and 1930s, but I suspect that we are heading in that direction. I do not wish to deal with the industrial base, since my hon. Friends have discussed that adequately. I want to talk about public expenditure. Public expenditure relates to the quality of life. In my constituency, one man in six does not have a job, and yet the Prime Minister talks about the work-shy. Give us the work and we shall show whether we are shy. When there is unemployment and massive deprivation—and the Department of Health and Social Security's investigation shows that the North is a deprived area—public expenditure is vital to deal with the social problems. There is grave doubt whether the last Government's policy for health resources reallocation will go ahead. When there is no growth, such a policy cannot go ahead and we shall fall further and further behind in health terms. We depend on local government. The largest employer of labour in my constituency is the local authority. On 21 December the Secretary of State sent a missive to local authorities saying that they should aim for a notional rate of 119p in the pound. The average level for Tyne and Wear authorities is already at or above that level.Is my hon. Friend aware that the city of Newcastle has the highest rate level of all and that the North Tyneside metropolitan council has the seventh highest rate in the country?
The high rate level is caused not by a waste of money but simply because the money is needed in such areas. The pressures to cut local expenditure can result only in a reduction in services, mass unemployment and redundancies and the quality of life will be decimated.
I hope that the Minister will take the message to his colleagues from moderate people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) that the Armstrong) and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), that the people of the North-East will not stand much longer for the present conditions. I am reminded of a novel by a former Member of the House, Jack Lawson, called "Under the Wheel". That novel is not widely read, but it is worth reading. It describes West Durham in the early part of the century and the emergence of the Labour Party. The author says that the secret service got it wrong when it went round the cellars of Manchester, Liverpool and London looking for the conspirators, those who were going to lead the revolution. The real source of the revolution was in the chapels and union lodges of the Northern region. We preach that we must follow democratic ways. However, young people do not have our sustained belief in democracy. The Government must not press us too hard. The Government should not leave the economic fate of the Northern region to be dealt with on a free-for-all basis. We need some order, we need some discipline and we need some work.5.58 pm
I apologise for missing half an hour of the debate. I was dealing with a constituency case that relates to one of the problems at the centre of the debate—the problem of the small business man faced with planning permission difficulties in a semi-urban area. We all have an obligation to ensure that our local authorities do not put difficulties in the way of small business men setting up and expanding.
I hope that I shall be forgiven by Opposition Members for speaking briefly in the debate. I am one of the six Tory Members representing Tyne-Tees constituencies. I was born and educated in Bishop Auckland and have lived with the problems which Opposition Members outlined to the House today. I identify myself with many of the issues that have been brought to the attention of the House today. However, the North has lived with these problems for a long time, and to hear some Labour Members one would imagine that they were a creation of only six months' duration. It is only fair for them to acknowledge the deep-rooted nature of the problems. I checked the unemployment figures for Teesside, bearing in mind that it was the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) who introduced the debate. When his Government left office unemployment was running at 8·7 per cent. In 1970 it was 4·7 per cent. That same situation applies across all the northern constituencies. Unemployment mounted massively during the period of Labour rule. To hear Labour Members speak, one would think there had never been bankruptcy. I ask them to think back to 1976–77. That applied not just to the Northern region. My father-in-law's firm in the West Riding of Yorkshire went bankrupt during that period. That was not a responsibility of the present Government. It is a fact of life with which all Governments have lived. The heart of the trouble is not the regional structural problems but the fact that something is wrong with manufacturing industry and the nation at large. It is upon manufacturing that all our prosperity—not just that of the North—and our capacity to help the sick and handicapped and to build the roads, the hospitals and the schools depend. We see our overseas rivals, which we used to outpace, now outpacing us. The decline of the proportion of the labour force engaged in manufacturing industry has very serious implications for regions such as the Northern region. It has implications for the pattern of employment, for unemployment rates, for the distribution of income, and so on. It therefore seems essential that we should not just focus on the problems of the North and on solving them within the context of the North through a northern regional development agency. It is vital that we consider how we can improve the position throughout the nation. The key to the malaise of this country is the value of the output of manufacturing industry, and there the picture is even worse. Over a decade the value of manufacturing output has grown by 43 per cent. but that is nowhere near the increases achieved in France and Germany and all the other EEC countries. The growing disparity between the value of British manufacturing industry's output and that of other nations in Europe is one of the central issues in this debate about the Northern region, because it is fundamentally a region of manufacturing industry. If Labour Members fail to recognise that, we shall never get anywhere. I do not want to deal with the structural problems; I want to move from the value of goods produced to the essential ingredient of value, and that is the skill to which each region in the country can turn to ensure that our manufacturing industry turns out the products that are up with the market, that meet the demands of th