§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
§ 11.50 p.m.
§ Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)The field is now restricted to men of Kent and to Kentish men. The time for debate is limited, but I want for a few minutes to touch on what is, perhaps, a less exciting aspect of industry than that with which the House has been dealing today. I must, first, say what I do not want to do. I emphatically do not want to challenge the right of any other area in Kent to get what industry it can. I am not desirous of drawing to my part of Kent anything that anyone else has or wants to get, but the Board of Trade policy for industry in Kent affects every part of the county, including the town of Ashford. That is why I am raising the general subject of Government policy about industry in Kent.
Nor do I want, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of this, to be particularly critical of the 204 Board of Trade's policy. The Board of Trade has an extraordinarily difficult job. It has to balance many factors, and it cannot set up industry anywhere. All it can do is to steer industry. To say to the Parliamentary Secretary that we want this or that is to misunderstand and to misinterpret the function of the Board of Trade. Nevertheless, I think that this rôle of steering is very important, and can be a very significant aspect of Government policy.
It is important to all those who can be steered—the industrialists—and it is very important to those at whom they can be steered—the towns and areas. It is important that they should all know the mind of, as it were, the man at the wheel, and that is really what I seek tonight. I want to give my hon. Friend a chance to tell us what is the mind of the Board of Trade on the question of locating industry in this, in some ways, rather singular County of Kent. Incidentally, how much of this debate will get into print in the county I do not know, but I hope that it will be put on record in some form.
The county poses a number of problems. When it comes to siting certain industries, defence affects, or has affected policy here, although I cannot see why it should today. Again, industry there has reached the end of, at any rate, a chapter. Kent also has seaside resorts that present a special problem, and it also contains the town of Ashford, which is my main concern.
Although my hon. Friend may not think that we have problems comparable with those that concern his Department in other parts of the country, there are two aspects of our industrial future that concern us. The first is the policy relating to our receiving overspill from London, and the second is the future of the Ashford railway works. Dealing, first, with the overspill question, perhaps I may be allowed to preface my remarks by making my own position quite clear.
I do not think that I can humbug my hon. Friend about this, but the process of decanting Londoners to expanding towns, to which this Government gave countenance in the 1953 Act, has not my personal support, and never has had. In the first place, it creates enormous problems for the receiving authorities, which are not all equipped to receive 205 the overspill population. Further, it has very little bearing on London's over-population, because the magnetism of commerce, and of commercial offices being put up in London pulls in population as fast as it can be decanted; and only a decade after overspill arrangements were started by the London County Council is that authority talking of taking more serious action to restrict commercial development.
I have a council, democratically elected, which wants overspill, and which before its election made its views abundantly clear to all concerned. My job is to assist the council in every way to carry out its democratically appointed task. It is clear that if we are to make a success of overspill in Ashford, incorporating large numbers of people from London, it must be placed on a solid industrial basis. In my view, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have not always worked closely hand in glove in this matter as one might wish. I am not being critical about that. Fundamentally, they have not the same aim. One Ministry is thinking in terms of housing and population, and the other is thinking of industry and where it is needed.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me where, among the hosts of other priorities, the subject of expanding towns comes on the list. If an engineering works wants an industrial development certificate for Ashford, or any other prospective expanding town, does the Board of Trade say, "We would sooner you went to a Development Area, or to Lancashire, or to the seaside," or, "We would sooner you went anywhere but South-East England"
Where do we stand? My hon. Friend must accept it from me that a number of industrialists and local authorities are not as clear on this as they ought to be. Expanding towns are not an academic exercise. Government money is involved here, with housing, utilities and the rest, and it is important that the Board of Trade policy should be more closely geared to this question than it has been.
The second aspect on which I want to touch, and which is a bigger anxiety, is the future of the railway works at Ashford, it has been the industrial hub of 206 the town for a century. Indeed, it is a town within a town. I am not pretending that Ashford is singular in having one major industry on which it depends. Many towns are similarly situated and many of them, indeed, have industries which, in the nature of things, are having to change and even close down. I am not suggesting that we have a particular distinction in this respect, but it matters very much indeed to Ashford. These works are approaching a decisive point in their existence. Decisions are about to be reached by the British Transport Commission and the Ministry of Transport, but the consequences may have something to do with the Board of Trade, and I will explain why.
These works employ large numbers of men, and, indeed, generations have regarded them as the future career for their sons. Not only breadwinners but whole families are dependent upon them. These works began in Ashford long before 99 out of 100 factories were thought of in Kent. I have not attempted to find out what is to be done about these works. If I were to ask I should probably be told in confidence, and that would be of no use to my constituents. At one time I understand the run-down date was given as 1963, and I have since heard that it has been accelerated to 1960. I think that proposal has been under discussion, even if it has not been finally resolved. That is far from being offset by the developments in connection with the electrification of the railway.
I have given the consequences some thought. I have concluded that it would be wrong simply to fight the decision based not only on local but national considerations. That would seem to me to be what I would call branch line tactics. If the British Transport Commission, after due consultation with the unions, which I believe they are doing, comes to a certain decision, broadly speaking those of us interested in British Railways have got to accept it. I am one of those who believe that British Railways are in their present straits, to some extent, not for want of political interference, but because of it. I shall not follow that road now. It is, however, my job to anticipate the consequences of these things, and it is part of my hon. Friend's job, also.
My hon. Friend may say—I hope he will not—that he knows nothing about 207 the Ashford works and he cannot anticipate any decision there. Anticipation, in certain cases, is nine-tenths of the job. It takes a great deal of time and much preliminary work to fill the gap in a town the size of Ashford. The time to arrange for work to be there is now, not when the notices go up in the shops and grass begins to grow in the tracks. I want the Board of Trade and others concerned to have good notice of the problem, and I want the Government to make the relevant decisions now about industry going to Kent.
In general, there is a big undecided problem as to what obligation the Government have in respect of all redundant industries, be they cotton, coal, or anything else; but, generalities apart, the Government have a distinct obligation here. The Government of which I was a member took the decision, I freely admit, to refuse permission to Rolls-Royce in 1955 to set up a works in Ashford. Had that works gone there, these problems would not now arise. I shall not discuss that decision now, but the consequences of it must be borne in mind. They are certainly remembered in Ashford.
We are entitled to ask that any industries which are considering going to Ashford will be in no way discouraged. Is there any embargo on any industry possibly going there, and, if so, on what categories? It is important to Ashford and to all prospective industrialists to know where they stand. Moreover, if men are willing to buy and prepare industrial land, will they be allowed to fill it? That is really the point. How is this rather negative instrument, the Board of Trade industrial development certificate, wielded in this county?
To put the matter in perspective, I realise that to every part of the country industry is an attraction. Most people want it, and they are prepared to specify the kind of industry they want. Industry is no longer established in large industrial centres. It is disposed all over the country. Every town can find a use for it.
Some people think that it is the Government's job to find it. I have said that that is not my view. I am reminded of what Bob Hope said angrily to the cat when he fell over it, "from now on, you will have to catch your own mice." 208 We are willing and able to catch our own mice. We are not asking the Board of Trade to do it, but the mice should be free to run our way if they feel inclined; and we want to be assured that they will not be lured elsewhere with bits of Board of Trade toasted cheese. I am looking to my hon. Friend, from other side of the Medway, for his assurance.
§ 12.4 a.m.
§ Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for allowing me this opportunity to intervene for a few minutes. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that in the Medway towns we have had very considerable cause for concern about our industrial future there because of the announcement that certain naval establishments are to be removed from the area. The dockyards of Chatham have been, of course, the biggest single industry in Kent for many years. It was felt that the removal of the naval establishments created the possibility that the dockyards also would be abolished or greatly curtailed.
There has been great satisfaction in the Medway towns now that the Chatham Dockyard's future has been assured. But the very fact that Sheer-ness Dockyard was closed had certain implications for employees in Chatham Dockyard, because undertakings were given that established personnel would be transferred from there and unestablished personnel in Chatham Dockyard would probably have to go on the labour market.
It was with a very great deal of satisfaction that the efforts of my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty were observed this week-end; efforts which, it would appear, look as if they will be successful in bringing very worth-while industry to Sheerness—the future of which is of such great concern to my own area. Yet there has been running through the minds of many people in Kent some apprehension as to where exactly my hon. Friend stands in relation to the county planning authority.
I say this because recently we have had difficulty in Gillingham in getting planning authority for certain industries which wish to come to the town; and, in this connection, I would cite particularly the new factory which is projected by Bowaters. That organisation wishes to 209 construct a factory on 13 acres of War Department land which is shortly to be relinquished. The Department stated that it was putting up this land to public auction; but that was more than two months ago. This company will construct a factory employing more than 500 people, but it is still waiting to purchase the land.
I hope that my hon. Friend will say tonight that he is in "cahoots" with the county planning authority in the matter of industry in the Medway towns and that he will have consultations with the Secretary of State for War to see whether there can be a speeding up of the sale of this land by public auction so that it can be put to the purpose which we need—the building of a factory which will bring employment to the area.
§ 12.8 a.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers)My hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will not need to be told by me that the ventilation of any problems concerning the County of Kent will receive a sympathetic hearing from me. We each represent a Kent constituency and live in the county and I should be very sorry if there was any conflict between the interests of the county and the Government's policy on the distribution of industry. I assure my hon. Friends that no such conflict exists and that our general approach—one agreed, incidentally by both sides of the House—is the right one.
Our broad approach is that there is too great a concentration of industry in the south-east of England. What we should like to see is the expansion of the economy in the north and west of England, in Wales and in Scotland, while something of a halt is called to expansion in the south-east. The general pattern can be seen from the unemployment figures for May—the latest month for which complete figures are available—which show that in Kent the total of 2.1 per cent. was actually lower than the national unemployment figure of 2.2 per cent.; and considerably lower than that for Wales, where it was 4 per cent., and Scotland—4.5 per cent.—and Merseyside, with 4.8 per cent.; or Northern Ireland with, alas, 8 per cent.
This, however, is only the broadest picture. There are some areas in Kent, 210 for example, Herne Bay and Whitstable, with an unemployment figure of 5.8 per cent., and the Isle of Thanet, where we are anxious to see new industry going and where we consider giving inducements under the Distribution of Industry Acts for industry to do so. These are places where there is high unemployment, particularly in the winter months and where more all-the-year-round employment, especially for men, is sorely needed. I would have added the Isle of Sheppey but for the welcome news which the Civil Lord gave the House on Friday about the sale of the Sheerness Dockyard as a centre for engineering production.
Since the Distribution of Industry Act of last year came into operation, 21 firm and eligible applications have been received for Government assistance for projects situated in those areas in Kent. So far four applications have been approved and 12 are still under consideration. At the other end of the scale there are places, including some in my own constituency, where the introduction of new industry might prove an embarrassment. In these places we should normally refuse an industrial development certificate for any new project which required a significant amount of labour. We do not operate this control rigidly or bureaucratically. If a firm already in one of these places wants an extension to improve its layout, or needs a new warehouse or canteen, we do not interfere with that at all; it is only buildings that will make new demands on the available labour that we do not allow.
But in between these two types of place—the D.A.T.A.C. places, on the one hand, and the centres of low unemployment, on the other—there are parts of the county where we look at each project on its merits. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is, of course, particularly concerned for Ashford. I should not be frank if I said that in present conditions we should encourage a firm to go to Ashford. Unemployment in the town in June is only 0.7 per cent., or half the national average, and he will appreciate that our efforts of persuasion must be concentrated on places with unemployment above the national average and not on places where it is well below it.
But, as I have said, we do try to operate our policy flexibly and sensibly, and we should certainly not pursue it to 211 the point of preventing legitimate expansion which could not take place elsewhere. If a firm from, say, the Midlands or Yorkshire applied to set up in Ashford it would probably get a dusty answer. But if a firm already in the south-east region, with a moderate labour requirement, wanted to go to a place like Ashford, and satisfied us that it could not go to an area with high unemployment, we should look sympathetically at its application. There are no hard and fast rules, and we try in each case to see what best accords with the national interest.
I have been describing our distribution of industry policy in relation to Ashford as it stands at present. Despite what my hon. Friend says, we do co-operate closely with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in trying to get fresh industry into new towns or towns with an overspill agreement so that there is work available to match the increasing population. My hon. Friend has, very properly, spoken of Ashford as a potentially expanding town. I can assure him that if Ashford's present negotiations with the London County Council are satisfactorily completed and an overspill agreement is reached we shall be very ready to assist by encouraging London firms, which are unable to move to an area of high unemployment, to consider the possibilities of going to Ashford.
I am told that the present proposals are for the provision of more than 4,000 dwellings to accommodate 15,000 people over a period of fifteen years. This, together with the natural increase of population, will mean that Ashford will grow to more than one-and-a-half times its present size, and that should give it a more diversified industrial structure and make its prospects for full employment brighter than they are now—that is, of course, if the industrial development parallels the increased housing.
That development, at any rate in the long-term, bears very much on the danger, about which my hon. Friend is so naturally concerned, of unemployment arising as a result of the discharge by British Railways of some of their staff. We are well aware that this threat does exist; it is an inevitable consequence of the modernisation programme of British 212 Railways, which will eventually result in the disappearance of the steam locomotive. I understand that British Railways at present employ about 3,500 people in Ashford. But it is only the locomotive works, employing about 1,300 workers, in which redundancy is threatened. These works were provisionally scheduled for closing by the end of 1960, but I understand that this date is now under review by the British Transport Commission.
I cannot give my hon. Friend any definite information as to the phasing of the closing of these works which will eventually emerge, but the Commission will do what it can to cushion the effects of redundancy by offering alternative employment where suitable jobs are available in the area. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, there are plans for the establishment of new electric train repair and inspection sheds in Ashford. We and the Ministry of Labour will do everything possible to ensure that those who become redundant will find alternative employment either in other works in the district or as a result of the introduction of new industry.
There are altogether at present new projects in prospect in the Ashford area which are expected to provide about 1,000 new jobs, including 400 for men. I share my hon. Friend's anxiety that we should not reach a position where we have a sudden and marked increase in unemployment but should take steps in anticipation to ensure as far as we can a smooth transition for these workers to other employment. As I have said, we at the Board of Trade will do all in our power to match the increase in population which will follow if the overspill agreement is made with the London County Council by an attempt to steer appropriate industries to the Ashford district.
May I say a word about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham. We all appreciate that the largest employer in Gillingham and the Medway towns as a whole is the dockyard, where about 13,000 people are employed. The future of the dockyard appears secure despite the abolition of the Nore Command and the closure of a number of naval establishments in the area. Total redundancies from this 213 closure are expected to be about 1,300, excluding any redundancies which may arise from the transfer of established workers from Sheerness to Chatham.
A number of these redundancies may well be absorbed by firms which acquire the relinquished naval premises. One firm, William Palfrey, Ltd., which recently acquired the Medway Barracks and Naval Gunwharf at Chatham, expects to employ 500 workpeople. In addition, there are 13 projects for which I.D.C.s have been issued and which, together, are expected by the firms concerned to provide a further 1,750 new jobs, of which 1,250 are for men and 500 for women.
214 The percentage of unemployment in Gillingham has gone down from 1.9 per cent in May to 1.5 per cent in June. I can assure my hon. Friends that we are watching the position in the Medway towns closely and that we shall do all we can to see that the present situation does not deteriorate. As a man of Kent and a Kentish man, I should like to steer as many new industries as possible to this area, but I must have regard to the less fortunate parts of England where there is a greater unemployment rate than we have in the fair County of Kent.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.