HC Deb 07 December 1934 vol 295 cc2045-51
Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 8, line 19, after "Stanley" to insert "Tanfield."

This Amendment is necessary owing to a drafting error. Tanfield was in the Financial Resolution, but by a clerical error it was left out of the Bill.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

I wish to draw attention to the fact that the omission which we are asked to make good rather points the moral and adorns the tale of our Debates. Tanfield is next to West Stanley, but West Stanley is excluded. I can understand, although I do not always agree with, the Government's case in limiting the areas under the Schedule, but the Committee will note how very careful the Government have been in this matter. They have really omitted an area of the most depressed type. In visiting depressed areas the other day, the Prince of Wales went to West Stanley. Yet it is excluded. It just shows that the servants of the Department who are responsible for drafting the Bill have been so keen on its limitation that they have actually omitted one or two of the places which, if the Government knew the areas, would have been included.

Mr. H. JOHNSTONE

Tanfield was in the Financial Resolution?

Mr. STANLEY

Yes.

Mr. TINKER

The right hon. Gentleman said this was merely a drafting Amendment. Does that mean that there is no increase at all in the scope of the Bill?

Mr. STANLEY

None. The point is that a district included in the Financial Resolution was, by a clerical error, omitted from the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 12, leave out "District," and insert "Districts."

In line 15, at the end, insert "and." [Mr. Stanley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."

3.16 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD

We Lancashire Members think it is our duty to give the Minister another opportunity to explain why Lancashire is not included in this schedule. Re has done his best to explain it, but he has not satisfied either Lancashire Members or Lancashire people. When the Commissioners were sent out we were surprised that they were not asked to survey Lancashire, because we have always contended that Lancashire is as depressed an area as any of the areas that were surveyed. We have thought over various tests for distressed areas. Take Lancashire as a coal mining county, and compare it with the coal-mining districts in the Schedule, and it will be found that the position in Lancashire is worse than in any other district. I have taken a few figures out of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" to compare Lancashire with Durham. In January of this year there were in Lancashire 63,239 miners, and in November of this year 59,402. In Durham, in January, there were 104,539 miners and in November 105,810. That shows an increase of over 1,000 miners in employment in Durham and a decrease of nearly 4,000 in Lancashire, and as the employing capacity of Lancashire is much less than Durham it will be seen that, proportionately, Lancashire is rapidly deteriorating. In view of those figures I hope the Minister will tell us why he has thought fit to exclude Lancashire, when considered as a coal mining county.

We find the same situation as regards cotton. In January of this year Lancashire was employing 66,591 people in the cotton industry, and in November 60,679, a decrease of nearly 6,000. The number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief in Lancashire has, during the last three years, increased in a greater proportion than in any district in the Schedule. Therefor, we fail to understand why the Minister has not included Lancashire; and when we remember his sympathy with Lancashire we marvel all the more. I realise that he cannot now put Lancashire into the Schedule, but I rise to make my protest at its omission, and I hope he will give us some more convincing reasons for his action than we have so far had. As Lancashire is excluded, I hope he will realise that the county ought to receive more consideration in other directions. In the Gracious Speech from the Throne on the Prorogation of Parliament last month were these words: I regret that unhappily some areas have not shared in the improvement and their special conditions are receiving the sympathetic attention of My Ministers. One of those areas is undoubtedly Lancashire. I hope the Minister will tell us as briefly as possible why he has not thought fit to include Lancashire as a distressed area, particularly in view of the figures which I have given.

3.21 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

I wish to take this opportunity to ask why Lancashire has not been included in the Bill. We are not intending to oppose the Schedule, but the figures which have just been given by my hon. Friend must have interested everybody. The Minister has from time to time tried to explain why certain areas have not been put into the Bill. I know that the Government intend to experiment before they bring in any other areas, but we wish to emphasise our position in Lancashire in the hope that when the experiment is concluded Lancashire, among other areas, may then be brought in. It would not have been fair on our part to allow this opportunity to pass without giving Lancashire's point of view. I hope other hon. Members will do the same in regard to other areas. I want the Government to realise the immense possibility that exists for doing something for all the depressed areas. The problems of England, Scotland and Wales are tremendous. When the time comes the Government, I imagine, will be judged by what they have done with the problem of unemployment. I trust that Lancashire will be one of the places to be brought in as early as possible.

3.23 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson)

It is perhaps appropriate that a Lancashire Member should reply to other Lancashire hon. Members and explain why the county which they all three represent has not been included in the Bill. No one who has any knowledge of Lancashire will deny that areas can be found in it where unemployment is high, but Lancashire is not like the other three areas in England to which this Bill refers. Those areas predominantly depend on one basic industry and in many cases one only. Lancashire is fortunate in having a diversified series of industries. Any hon. Member who read the report of the survey that was made by the Manchester University and published in 1932 must have been struck by the fact that the three basic industries, cotton, coal and engineering, only provided some 55 per cent. of the total employment in manufacturing in that county.

Take any other test you like. Take the test of the progress of employment in Lancashire. You will find that over the last three years the rate of unemployment has dropped from something like 32.3 per cent. to just over 21 per cent. You will not find comparable figures of unemployment in the other three depressed areas; indeed, if their level of unemployment were as low as that which prevailed in Lancashire to-day we should not be dealing with this Bill. Take the basic industry of Lancashire, namely, cotton, and you will find that over the last three years unemployment has dropped from about 45 per cent. in 1931 to about 25 per cent. Whatever test you like to take you find that, although individual black spots exist, Lancashire has made a very considerable improvement in the last three years.

Mr. G. MACDONALD

In the light of those figures how does the Minister account for the fact that between January and November of this year there has been an increase of 6,000 unemployed in the cotton industry?

Mr. HUDSON

The interesting thing about the cotton industry is that, in spite of the depression through which it has been passing, there has been, an actual increase in the number of insured persons employed in the industry of something like 33,000 in the last three years. Moreover, if any individual spot is taken, it will be found that the worst towns in Lancashire are not comparable with the worst towns in the other areas. There is no town in Lancashire with unemploy- ment like that of, for example, Maryport, in Cumberland, or Merthyr Tydfil, in South Wales, or several towns on the North East Coast. For these reasons it did not seem to be desirable, when the four Commissioners were originally appointed, to include Lancashire, and it is still less desirable now. As I think I said in an earlier speech on the Bill, Lancashire is not being disregarded, and no doubt any of the experiments made by the Commissioners which are successful, and which can appropriately be extended subsequently to Lancashire in order to meet the difficulties of individual towns, will be so extended when the time comes.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON

In view of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, I think there must be some misapprehension as between the figures which have been quoted elsewhere and those which he gives. I have a statement here showing the decline in the cotton industry, and giving figures for 1932, 1933, and 1934. I find that in the spinning part of the industry the total number employed in 1932 was 254,490, and in 1934, 229,550. In the weaving section the number employed in 1932 was 263,460, and in 1934, 237,809. In addition to that, one must look at the figures for the coal industry, where the statement I have shows a decrease in the number of people employed, between 1933 and 1934, of 42,300. We cannot get away from the fact that Lancashire has been suffering under this depression, not only during the last 12 months or two years, but right along the line. There has been periods during which it has been more depressed even than it is at the moment, and, from the figures that we have with regard to the cotton industry and the coal industry, it looks as though it is likely to get into the same position again. I do not know the exact position in the engineering industry, but, whatever it may be, the engineering industry is not to be compared in extent with the mining industry or the cotton industry.

My own division, which six or seven years ago had a number of collieries and ironworks and cotton mills, has very few indeed now. There is only one coal-mine in the whole of the Wigan borough district, and many mills have been standing for the greater part of 10 years, while one of the largest steelworks has now been shut down. This leaves, not only Wigan, but the surrounding areas, in a peculiarly derelict position. There does not seem to be very much hope of new industries coming there. When the Minister gives further consideration to this point, I hope he will take a broad and full survey of the whole question as regards Lancashire, and, if he does, he will find that Lancashire deserves to be included as well as some of the other areas, because we have been going through the stress and strain of adversity for a long number of years and even if, as the Minister says, it looks a little more favourable at the moment, it does not mean that that small increase is going to materially improve the conditions of the people who have been down and out so long.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. MACMILLAN

I quite understand that by voting for the Resolution the other day the House decided what are to be the areas for this experiment. Naturally there are some districts which still think that it might have included them but I realise that the House has made its decision. I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the statement he has just made as to the view of the Government that, if and when these experiments are successful upon the limited scale on which they are to he initiated, we have hopes that they will be extended on a wider, more useful and more comprehensive scale.

3.32 p.m.

Miss WARD

In regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's references to the diversity of industries in Lancashire, I should be glad if he could state how far the introduction of those industries has been due to the operations of the Lancashire Industrial Development Board. We have had a good deal of trouble on the North East Coast with the setting up of an Industrial Development Board to function properly. It has been a question of difficulties between various local authorities. I have often been told, when approaching Ministers, that we have not done all that we should have done because we have not had this Board in operation. It is very difficult for an outsider who is not intimately connected with the work of local authorities or of the industrialists who were asked to sit on the Board to know how far the Industrial Development Board in Lancashire has contributed to the introduction of these industries in Lancashire. It will be very helpful to have the point cleared up in order that we might be able to say to those on the North East Coast who disapprove of the setting up of the Board that it has been of very real assistance to Lancashire.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. RHYS

I think my right hon. Friend should take some encouragement from the dislike shown by hon. Members opposite at being left outside the scheme.

Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.