HC Deb 13 February 1964 vol 689 cc668-81

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

9.10 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)

I wish to draw attention this evening to a certain part of North Lincolnshire, and to draw attention in particular to two problems which are somewhat correlated, but which have regard to, and arise from, two parts of North Lincolnshire, namely Bartonon-Humber and Scunthorpe.

This is a time—and we had some reference to this in the last debate—broadly speaking, of mass production, diminution in taste—and I would add in individuality—and of over-concentration in urban conglomerations at the expense of individually developing and self-expressing smaller communities. Barton-on-Humber is one of these smaller communities one in which there is a very distinct consciousness not only of the rights of the sturdy people who live there, but also a distinct consciousness by those people of their duties to the community in which they live, and this is no bad thing to find in these days.

Barton has a working population of about 2,350 men and about 650 women. They are a self-helping community, which goes very well with the description that I have given of them, and as one example may I cite that over a period of 12 years there were constant efforts by this small community to raise money to build themselves what is now, I am glad to say, perhaps the finest warmed open-air swimming bath in the United Kingdom. It was opened last year. That is one example of the regard for self-help, self-respect, and pride which these people in North Lincolnshire have in their community.

They are a go-ahead lot, but unfortunately since the war there has been a very serious contraction in two of their main activities, namely, in the brick and tile industry, and in the cycle industry, with the result that there has been a marked falling off in the number of jobs available to people in Bartonon-Humber itself.

That has meant a marked increase in the dependence for employment on the steelworks in Scunthorpe, which is about 14 miles away. Nearly 30 per cent. of the men, and 15 per cent. of the women, are driven out of the Barton to which they belong and which they love to find jobs. This is bad. It is bad from the point of view of the individual worker, because people who work at a distance from where they live are very often the first to be dispensed with when a depression sets in. And even if that does not befall them, they have the considerably increased expense of working that distance away from home, and the physical racket of having to go to and from work every day, with the increase in time that that means in their working day.

It must not be forgotten that the steel works in Scunthorpe operate on a shift system, which means that these wretched people from Barton sometimes have to travel those 14 miles to work and back at night. It is bad also from the point of view of the community, because however much these people may prefer to live in Barton, in a smaller and more individualistic community, since they have to bear the physical burden of going that long distance every day to and from their work they naturally take the first chance that comes their way to live in Scunthorpe. That is bad for Barton. It means that this real, live, self-expressing community is gradually running down.

More industry must be brought to Barton. None has been brought there. One of the main reasons for this is that the Government do nothing for Barton. Instead, they rely on certain figures, which happen to be correct but which, in my submission, give a totally false impression. Nearly one-third of the workers of Barton are virtually "unemployed", although they go to Scunthorpe to work. They are not registered as unemployed because they have the spirit and perseverance to find work as far away as 14 miles, with all that that means in discomfort, especially in the winter. So they are not regarded as unemployed, and the Government can sit back very conveniently and forget all about them.

I use those words, which are a little harsh, because this is not the first time that I have mentioned the question of Barton-on-Humber in the House, and drawn attention to the state of affairs that exists there. Nothing of a positive nature has been done. I shall refer shortly to something of a negative character which had its inspiration in the Government, if it was not the first-hand work of the Government. First, I want to mention another point about Barton. It used to be a good little port. Ships up to 500 tons used to go into Barton Haven right up until 1954. There was also a considerable lighterage trade across to Hull, as well as the trade from ships coming direct to Barton. But because—doubtless for very good reasons from its own point of view, and having regard to its responsibilities—the local drainage board decided to divert some water which used to come out through Barton Haven, the harbour has been silting up almost visibly ever since 1954. Now, even barges have difficulty in going there except at springs, let alone ships up to 500 tons.

I wonder whether the Government know that no authority is responsible for this port. I submit that an authority should be responsible for looking after small ports and for seeing that they remain viable, instead of being allowed to decay. The Government have not helped. They have done nothing.

Now I come to the point in respect of which the Government may be held responsible, indirectly, at any rate, for doing something. Barton is one of the many towns which will be slapped down if Dr. Beeching has his way. Here was a little port, with admirable road and rail communications. I am convinced that over the last 10 years saboteurs have been a: work, trying to make that excellent railway connection as inconvenient as possible and to prevent it from paying.

Let me give one example. The enterprising people of Barton used to arrange school parties to go to Hull by ferry—the ferry with which Barton was connected by a small branch line, shuttling to and fro. When it was known that there were concerts on a certain night of the week in Hull to which the school children went, this malign influence—I can call it nothing else—especially came along and arranged that the connection with the ferry to Hull should no longer operate. Now, these children have to remain in Barton. The railway is used to a less extent and culture is not served either.

I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for this, but he must realise that it is a serious situation. He may have a more charitable explanation than I about what has been going on in British Railways which allowed timetables to be arranged completely regardless of the cultural life of this small but valuable community. I wish to hear from the hon. Gentleman about what he and the Government intend to do for Barton, this small port, which could be of such value to this hitherto vital community and which is not without national significance. Since the war the malting business in Barton has built up an export trade to the Continent which should interest the hon. Gentleman. It amounts to between 45,000 and 50,000 tons a year, which was dependent on the barges going to and fro between the maltings and Hull.

The second problem with which I wish to deal is related, because the steel industry comes into it. It refers to Scunthorpe. The Scunthorpe region is the largest steel-producing region in this country. I know that most people think of Sheffield when steel is mentioned. Although a bit of steel is produced there, Sheffield only polishes up the stuff which we make in Scunthorpe. The town has a fine record and a forward-looking council. Great efforts were made with wonderful success to house the increased number of steelworkers and their families as the industry developed. Scunthorpe is a town of 70,000 inhabitants and has grown at a phenomenal speed. But it is a one-industry town and the women fare badly.

There is a hidden pool of unemployed women, probably numbering 2,500. The national average of employed women is about 35 per cent. In Scunthorpe the figure is 23 per cent. If, to the number of unemployed which are shown on the books, there were added this 2,500, who would have jobs in light industry, were such jobs available, Scunthorpe would be—dare I say it about this Eldorado?—a depressed area, a development district, and I wish to know what the Government propose to do about it.

I have a suspicion that the Government dissuade industry from coming to Scunthorpe, and on paper they have a good reason for doing so. It is that other areas may appear more necessitous. Last year there was a slight depression and we felt it in Scunthorpe. That is the danger of having to rely exclusively on one industry. Most of the families depend on the steel industry for employment and if there is a sudden depression the result is a drastic diminution in their income. Except for 500 workers who are employed in light industry, the people in this borough of 70,000 inhabitants have nothing on which to depend when times are hard in the steel industry. That sort of depression could happen again.

The regular unemployment figures, are, thank Heaven, very small. Do the Government propose to continue to stand pat on those figures, or will they look at the reality underlying the figures? I hope it will not be considered frivolous when I remind the House that we are approaching a General Election, and I hope it will not be considered an offensive description if I say that aid is being handed out at a most significant speed. But nothing has come to this north-east corner of Lincolnshire except the Beeching slap in the face. I am not sure that this place should not be a development district. I hand to the Government, on a plate and just before the General Election, the opportunity to do something for Scunthorpe.

Why not transfer a Government Department there and provide employment for the women? Have they considered that, or have they always at the back of their minds something which has not been openly expressed—the idea that they cannot send anything to Scun thorpe, because there is so little registered unemployment there? There are other things besides numbers of registered unemployed which should be considered.

If the Government did something to Scunthorpe and by their action won away the voters of Scunthorpe from me, I would willingly lose my seat. If, on the other hand, they prefer my presence because they are not prepared to do anything for Scunthorpe, it is up to them.

9.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price) rose—

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will there be an opportunity for some of my hon. Friends who have been here for some time to continue this discussion? You may recall that I advised you that some of my hon. Friends would wish to continue it. I also advised the Government Whip, whose duty it is to inform the Minister, that we should not be changing but extending the scope of this debate to other parts of the country. Is it in order to continue the discussion when there is a Minister from the Board of Trade here to hear it?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot go further than thee. What the hon. Member said is absolutely accurate to this extent. He gave me, personally and informally, notice that other hon. Members would wish to take part in the debate. I said, I think rightly, that that was perfectly all right with the Chair if they gave warning to the Minister responsible. All that has happened at the moment is that the Minister has risen and, in accordance with the Ruling I gave, I think last month, I am required by precedent to call him if he rises in those circumstances.

Mr. Lawson

May my hon. Friends put their points before the Minister replies?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member cannot ask me that, because the Minister is not under my control. I am obedient to the circumstances, which are that he has risen and I am, in those circumstances, obliged to call him when he does so.

Mr. Price

Perhaps I may assist the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I an endeavouring to reply to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and I understand that a number of other hon. Members wish to take advantage of the fact that we have got on to the Adjournment a little earlier than usual to raise a number of general points. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will be here although, of course, in the shore time available no Minister can answer in detail all the points made.

It is the normal custom that proper notice is given on the particular subject which hon. Members wish to raise. No notice has been given to me or, as far as I know, to any other Minister. I shall, therefore, reply to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg, whose Adjournment debate this is, and whose subject has been put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lawson

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) knew of this proposal and was quite happy that we should have a few worth on the same lines as those on which he has spoken. He is quite happy to wait while one or two of my hon. Friends speak and, on that basis, for the Minister to reply.

The procedure adopted tonight is exactly the procedure described to us as agreed procedure to be carried out if it appeared that a debate was coming to an early termination. Under those circumstances, if hon. Members have points to put in a debate the opportunity should be used. Is the Parliamentary Secretary not prepared, in these circumstances, for the debate to continue a little further before he replies to it?

Mr. Price

I understand that the points which were to be raised were not to be about Barton-on-Humber or Scunthorpe. That was the subject put down for the Adjournment debate. Although hon. Members are perfectly free, according to the rules of the House, to raise other points after I have replied to the hon. and learned Member, I think it only courteous that I should reply at once to him on the subject of Barton-on-Humber and Scunthorpe. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable arrange ment. I understand that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies wish to raise no doubt similar, but wider points about places in Scotland—

Mr. F. H. Hayman (Falmouth and Camborne)

And Cornwall.

Mr. Price

Or Cornwall, or anywhere else.

The hon. and learned Member for Brigg, has drawn our attention this evening to the current situation and prospects in two, apparently very diverse, towns in his constituency—Barton-on-Humber and Scunthorpe. As he reminded us, Barton is a small urban district with a population of less than 7,000. It grew modestly during the 1950s, but more recently the pace of development appears somewhat to have slowed down.

Scunthorpe, on the other hand, is a town of substantial size. Its population is not far short of 70,000, more than ten times that of Barton. What is more, Scunthorpe has been in recent years one of the most rapidly growing towns in Britain. In 1931, its population was less than 35,000, so that it has more than doubled in size during the last 30 years. There can be very few towns, even in the so-called "booming South-East", of which we have heard so much in recent months, which can match Scunthorpe's record of dynamic growth.

But, although these two towns have, superficially at least, got little in common, there is one problem which they share, and it is for that reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman has, very properly, linked them in this debate. The link is this: both Barton and Scunthorpe feel that they need further industrial development. I should like, in a moment, to comment in detail on the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward for each of these two towns.

First, there is one general point which I must make. The desire for further industrial development is something which Barton and Scunthorpe have in common, not only with one another but also with the vast majority of towns, large and small, in the country as a whole. This is quite understandable. There can be very few of us who do not want to feel that our own particular town is developing, growing and becoming more prosperous. There are many places which can produce good social arguments—like those which the hon. and learned Member has put forward tonight—why further development is particularly desirable for them.

The demand for new industry is, therefore, virtually unlimited. But, on the other hand, the supply of new industry at any one time is, of course, by no means unlimited. Indeed, the amount of "steerable" industry available—that is new industrial development which is not tied to a specific location—is very strictly limited. The Board of Trade cannot, therefore, expect to be able to satisfy all the requests for new industrial development which are made to it. There must be some order of priorities. The overriding priority must, of course, be that which the Board under a statutory obligation to give to the needs of the development districts. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to quarrel with that priority.

I should like to turn now to the particular case of Barton-on-Humber. As I have said, the urban district of Barton has a population of about 6,600. The Barton Employment Exchange area, which covers a rather wider area than the urban district, had 2,848 insured employees in mid-1962, the latest date for which figures are available. Nearly 500 of these workers were employed in agriculture and quarrying, just over 1,000 in manufacturing, and the remainder in the service industries. In addition, a substantial number of workers travel to work in Scunthorpe each day and for employment purposes are registered there.

The House will recall that people tend to register as employed persons in the place where they work, but, if they become unemployed, register where they live, which is not necessarily in the same employment exchange area. The manufacturing firms in Barton are all relatively small, but they provide a sound basis for the town's prosperity and should continue to do so.

Unemployment in Barton has not, I am glad to say, been a serious problem in recent years. The average number of workers wholly unemployed in the Barton Employment Exchange area during the 12 months of 1963 was 90, which amounted to 3.1 per cent. of the working population. The comparable figure for Great Britain as a whole was 2.3 per cent. In January of this year, there were 50 men and 15 women registered as wholly unemployed—2.3 per cent., compared with a national figure of 2.1 per cent. If it is recalled that the Barton people working in Scunthorpe appear as Scunthorpe employed and not Barton employed, the percentage of true Barton people would be lower.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu

What is this question of true Barton people?

Mr. Price

I mean people living in Barton. I thought that that was part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the unemployment figures do not in themselves form a strong case for permitting further industrial development. Indeed, he did not base his case on them but rather on the need to provide jobs in Barton for the several hundred workers who travel to work each day in Scunthorpe.

If this were an ideal world, I might agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that everyone should be able to find the job of his choice in his own home town. But we are not living in an ideal world, and in the real world the increasing scale and specialisation of modern industry means that a town of Barton's size cannot possibly have a a sufficient range of industry to provide more than a relatively narrow range of jobs.

An increasing degree of travel-to-work is in inescapable feature of the modem industrial society in which we live. I cannot regard 14 miles as being an utterly intolerable distance to have to travel to work each day. I can appreciate that for some people a journey of 14 miles daily to and from their work involves a certain amount of inconvenience. But I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman painted rather too black a picture. I am by no means convinced that all the workers who now travel to Scunthorpe would necessarily prefer to work in Barton. In any case, I am sure that he would agree that any hardship which may be involved in travelling some distance to one's work is not at all comparable with the hard ship one faces if one has no job at all to which to travel.

In other words, the development districts' need for new industry must come before the needs of places like Barton-on-Humber. But that does not mean that Barton will be totally neglected by the Board of Trade. The Barton Urban District Council has been in touch with our regional office in Leeds and I hope that it has felt that it has been listened to sympathetically. The council has been told that we should be prepared to grant an industrial development certificate for Barton for any suitable project which could not be expected to go to a development district.

I can repeat that undertaking tonight. Our regional office has, in fact, drawn the attention[...] of two or three firms, which were known to have suitable projects in mind, to Barton as a possible location. So far, the firms concerned have preferred to go elsewhere. However, we sharll continue to bear the general situation in Barton in mind and to bring the town to the notice of firms on appropriate occasions.

The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the need to develop the harbour facilities of Barton-on-Humber. This, as he knows, is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, since any Government assistance would have to be given under the Harbours Bill, which is at present before the House. I will, therefore, limit myself tonight to commenting on the factual position regarding Barton Haven, as I understand it. The harbour at Barton-on-Humber is a tidal creek on the south side of the Humber used for barging goods over to Hull docks on the opposite bank. The harbour has been silting up, apparently because improved land drainage has reduced the fresh water flow. I understand that the minimum cost of the dredging required would be about £6,000.

Under the Harbours Bill the Minister of Transport would be empowered to give financial assistance to statutory harbour authorities by way of loan and, in exceptional circumstances, grant. There is, however, no statutory harbour authority for Barton Haven. It is within the limits of the Humber Conservancy Board, but its responsibility is the general conservancy of the estuary. It is the responsibility of the individual harbour authorities, for instance the British Transport Docks Board at Hull, to dredge and maintain the immediate approaches to the harbours on the estuary.

In relation to Barton Haven it is the responsibility of the individual wharf owners who, from the Government's point of view, are individually non-statutory harbour authorities, to finance and carry out any dredging or other operations necessary to maintain the use of their wharves at the level they desire. Barton-upon-Humber is not a development district, so no question of assistance under the Local Employment Acts arises.

The underlying principle which applies to both statutory and non-statutory harbours is that harbours are a commercial activity and must be self-supporting. The cost of maintaining them must be financed out of the trade passing through them. It is, therefore, up to the wharf owners in Barton Haven to consider whether they can themselves, in conjunction, carry out such dredging and other works as they think necessary; or whether there would be any advantage in their discussing with the urban district council and any other bodies in the area whom they think appropriate the possibility of setting up a statutory harbour authority for the Haven, to obtain the benefits of the Harbours Bill. Under the same Bill this could be done by means of an application to the Minister for a harbour empowerment order.

As to Scunthorpe, much of that I have already said about Barton applies equally to the larger town. Scunthorpe's rapid growth and current prosperity have been based on the development of the steel industry. The insured population of the Scunthorpe Employment Exchange area, which also includes Brigg, was nearly 50,000 in mid-1962. Nearly half of these workers were employed in the steel industry or its ancillaries. Scunthorpe is at present producing 11 per cent. of our crude steel output.

I appreciate that the dominant part which the steel industry has played in Scunthorpe's development has caused some problems and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman reminded us, the most immediate of these is the shortage of jobs for women in the town. For every 100 men at work in Scunthorpe there are only 30 women in employment, whereas in the country as a whole the ratio is 100 to 55. I fully accept that Scunthorpe needs new industry which will employ women and girls, and within the limits set by our obligation to the development districts we are prepared to see industrial development of this kind in the town. But I must add, because I do not wish to encourage false hopes, that past experience suggests that the number of suitable projects coming forward in the foreseeable future is likely to be quite small.

The hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that diversification of industry in Scunthorpe is desirable to reduce the extent to which the town is dependent on steel. I have some sympathy with his argument, but I can see no reason why the development of the steel industry should not continue to be the basis of Scunthorpe's prosperity in future, just as it has been the reason for its rapid growth in the past.

I developed the point when talking about Barton, but it applies even to a place the size of Scunthorpe. I think that we cannot expect a community of 70,000 people to have that full diversification of opportunity, particularly when one recognises that in industries like steel the minimum basic size of unit of production is so much larger than it was before the war. I think that one has to look to communities getting on to nearer half a million people before one can expect to find a complete balance in one's industry so that there is not complete dependence, or excessive dependence on one industry. That community will probably be getting on for that size—though not of people employed—for us to get a really full balance, but I think that the House will agree that that is something very much larger than a community of 70,000 people.

In considering applications for industrial development certificates for Scunthorpe, the Board of Trade will beat in mind the employment situation in the town, including the probability that the working population will go on increasing. But we must continue to be guided principally by the current levels of unemployment. In Scunthorpe, I am glad to say, unemployment has recently been below the national average. In January, it was 2.0 per cent. and the annual average for 1963 was 2.2 per cent., which was just below the national average.

Therefore, I must warn the hon. and learned Gentleman that the development districts and those places with a level of unemployment well above the national average must continue to have a higher claim than Scunthorpe upon the limited amount of genuinely steerable industry. This priority, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree, is socially and economically just.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu

Before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down, perhaps he can answer this question. When considering what unemployment there is in Scunthorpe, will he bear in mind those women who do not register there because they know that to do so is futile? If they were taken into consideration, too, I would be far more satisfied.

Mr. Price

I recognise that point but, when it conies to priorities, the place where the women are actually registered as unemployed must have the priority, because if they need the work sufficiently they are prepared to take it outside their own home town. The place where they are registered and known to be seeking work must have priority over the place where they are not openly seeking work, but would, no doubt, take work if it came along.