EMPLOYMENT, HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING (Hansard, 19 January 1965)

§ Mr. T. W. Urwin (Houghton-le-Spring)

It is with a good deal of trepidation that I rise at this hour to discuss the employment situation in my constituency, which is the subject of this Adjournment Motion. I am quite sure that the friendliness which has permeated this Chamber in the last few minutes will also be evident when I sit down and that the traditional courtesy and tolerance extended to a maiden speaker will be shown to me.

As this is my maiden speech in this historic building, I take this first opportunity of paying tribute to my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, for the 19 years of excellent service which he rendered as Member for the constituency between 1945 and 1964. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me not only in congratulating him on his elevation but also in wishing him well in his new sphere of activity.

Nineteen years is a long time, but there is a greater and longer link between my constituency and the Palace of Westminster inasmuch as the tongue of Big Ben was forged in a long since defunct engineering works in Houghton-le-Spring. We in the town are proud of that fact and we proclaim it on occasion almost as loudly as Big Ben itself. It must not be supposed, however, that because of this distinction Houghton-le-Spring lays any claim to be an engineering constituency. Since the days of the Industrial Revolution we have been almost entirely dependent on coalmining for our livelihood and economic wellbeing. This of course applies equally to many other constituencies in the northern region.

Coal production and the ancillary operations attached to it account for the fact that the Coal Board now is and for many years has been the largest employer in the constituency. Unfortunately, the trend of recent years towards greater mechanisation and the use of modern techniques has led to a drastic rundown in manpower in the constituency. The situation has been further complicated by 160 the closure of certain uneconomic pits, and the labour force has been substantially reduced.

Here I would quote figures provided by the National Coal Board and for this purpose two of the collieries which I shall include are outside my constituency. They are more or less on the perimeter. I refer to the Lambton "D" and Lumley Sixth Pit in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland). I include them only because a fairly large number of people from Houghton-le-Spring work in those pits. Adding those to the others within my constituency, the situation in 1951 was that we had 15,036 men employed in the mining industry. Thirteen years later, in 1964, the figure was reduced to 10,493, the minus figure of 4,843 representing approximately a 30 per cent. rundown in manpower in the industry. This has meant that, to a very large extent, the men displaced have had to migrate, because of the exigencies of their employment, to coalfields in other parts of the country. If this kind of situation is allowed to continue and to develop further, we shall inevitably run the risk not only of losing able-bodied men but of being faced with the need to maintain an increasingly ageing population.

Growing competition from other fuels and the exploration of the North Sea bed, recently begun, for deposits of oil and gas are further factors causing miners not only to look back to the past with a great deal of anxiety but to look forward to the future and the possibility of even further inroads being made into their means of employment. It can truly be said of a large area of my constituency that the economic future of a whole community is at stake.

In the urban district of Houghton two collieries have closed during the past few years, and we had news over the weekend of the imminent closure of the Lambton "D" Pit. I should make clear that this news came from the miners' lodge and it is not yet official from the point of view of the National Coal Board, although I understand that talks are taking place between the Coal Board and representatives of the miners about the closure of the colliery. Apparently, this decision has been taken—this is the claim made by the the fact that there are large coal deposits National Union of Mineworkers—despite 161 remaining in the colliery. The union claims, further, that the mechanisation of the colliery could have been handled more efficiently than it has been and that this would have helped the miners not only to be more productive but to be more economic in their daily working.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is not in the Chamber, but he has done me the courtesy of apologising for his absence this evening. In view of the statements which have been made by the miners' lodge and the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street and I are making joint representations to the Chairman of the National Coal Board on the matter, I ask my right hon. Friend to be good enough to use his good offices to intervene and, at least, delay the closure of the colliery until further investigations have been made. Naturally, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street shares my concern at the decision which we understand has been taken.

I suggest to my right hon. Friend also that economic planning in this area would be rendered much easier if he were to announced a declared and jointly agreed production target for the coal industry as a whole, the resulting information being conveyed at divisional level so that the miners would be fully acquainted with the facts and would know the target at which they were aiming. I am sure that everyone would be much happier with that knowledge behind them. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be bound to remember, at the same time, the absolute necessity for a co-ordinated policy for the fuel and power industries.

During this period of progressive and drastic rundown in manpower to which I referred, we had the closure of the Lambton brickworks which used to offer a fair amount of employment in the constituency and, more recently, there have been the Sunderland-Durham railway closures which also are the subject of correspondence between the Minister of Transport and myself.

The background already existing was one of persistently high unemployment in Houghton-le-Spring. In the Houghton employment exchange area alone, the consistently high level of 4 per cent, has been recorded for quite a long time, being made up at present of 529 men, 62 boys, 126 women and 40 girls.

162 What are the alternatives for these people? I know something of the frustration and misery involved, having been unemployed on one or two occasions, particularly as a boy leaving school. I ask the House to think for a moment of the frustration and misery which people feel on being unable to find work, especially the school-leaver who faces the heartbreaking business of looking for his first job in an increasingly intensive labour market. The alternative, obviously, is to diversify and introduce more industry into a constituency of this sort.

An opportunity has existed during the last 13 years. It ought to be made very clear that in the urban district of Houghton there is an industrial site within the ownership of the Board of Trade comprising 27 acres, and in 1948 my predecessor had a letter from the Minister of Labour and National Service indicating that the area of Houghton-le-Spring was too heavily committed to heavy industry, that it was necessary to introduce lighter industries and that the estate would he used for that purpose. It is true that for two or three years up to 1951 new factories were established but, unfortunately, since 1951 only one entirely new factory has been provided on the estate, although I admit that there have been extensions to the buildings which were in existence.

The situation now is that the five firms established there provide employment for 261 men only and 740 women. I am very pleased to learn, as my constituents are, of what appears to be a new note of urgency introduced by the Board of Trade by designating an advance factory for this site, but it is not enough. There still remain 11½ acres of undeveloped land on the same site and the urban district council assures me that, if necessary, it would be relatively easy to acquire additional land for the purpose of extending the site if industry is available to go there. In these circumstances, I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend at the Board of Trade will do everything possible to divert more new industry to the area, with emphasis on the employment of men. While it is obviously necessary to provide jobs for women, it is much more important to take the men, or as many of 163 them as possible, from the unemployment register.

I turn to that part of my constituency which comprises the urban district of Seaham. Briefly, but nevertheless proudly, I would refer to the last three Parliamentary representatives who served the old Seaham Division prior to its incorporation into the Houghton-le-Spring constituency. The were, in order of seniority, Sidney Webb, Ramsay Macdonald and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who took the Easington constituency after the Seaham one was merged. I am sure it will be agreed that this is a most distinguished line of succession.

In Seaham the situation in the mining industry is a good deal better than elsewhere in the constituency. Despite this greater stability, there has been a diminution of the labour force at the three collieries of 779 in the period 1951 to 1964. Those collieries are Dawdon, Seaham and Vane Tempest. But for the absorption of men from redundant collieries, the situation would have been considerably worse than it is at present. In Seaham there is a steady unemployment rate of over 3 per cent., embracing 311 men and boys of the gross total of 501 on the register. Virtually no new industry has been introduced into the Seaham area for several years, although 30½ acres of land are included in the town map for industrial development. This total comprises five sites within the area, including one of eight acres owned by the Board of Trade.

More diversification of industry is required in Seaham. The town is on the North East Coast and it is therefore not surprising that, many years ago, a dock was established primarily for shipping coal from collieries in the vicinity. The shipment of coal continues to be the main function of the Seaham Harbour Dock Company but, from the employment point of view, it is regrettable that its capacity to handle 3 million tons of coal a year is grossly under-used.

Before 1939 it was carrying traffic averaging 2 million to 2½ million tons per annum. The post-war peak for coal freight was in 1951 when just under 2 million tons was transported, including 104 million tons for export, but less than 1½ million tons was handled in 1964 and 164 of this total only 11,262 tons was for the export market. Two of the three local collieries to which I have referred stand literally on the seashore. Last week they were responsible for 63,381 tons, giving an estimated output of more than 3 million tons a year. Based on the same output statistics, the added production of the Hawthorn group of mines, which is in close proximity to the dock, and which I understand was to be serviced, when built a few years ago, by the dock, would give approximately 5½ million tons per annum gross.

Potentially, this dock could and should be carrying more coal freight. A good deal of the local production is, however, transported by rail for shipment at Sunderland, about four or five miles along the coast. This adds considerably to the cost of the product. Perhaps the Minister of Power will be good enough to take up this matter with the N.C.B. and, if necessary, the Minister of Transport.

The Sunderland rural district, which is the third local government area within my constituency, is again most heavily dependent economically on coal mining but, because of overlapping Ministry of Labour exchange areas, I regret that I am not able to quote unemployment figures. However, as the majority of the people in this area are served by the Sunderland exchange—where there is also a persistently high rate of well over 4 per cent. unemployed—it is safe to assume that the rate in the Sunderland rural district area is at least equivalent.

This, when coupled with the fact that, during the last thirteen years, 1,717 fewer men have been employed at the three collieries in the area—equivalent to a wastage of 32 per cent. in man-power and despite outside recruitment from other collieries—gives rise to further considerable concern. Under the county development plan, 35½ acres of land at Offerton, adjacent to the Sunderland Borough boundary—I understand that Sunderland Corporation has a further area of land which could be added to make one large parcel—have been allocated for industrial development without any apparent attempt being made to provide urgently needed new industries.

I have endeavoured, in the short time at my disposal, to convey to the House 165 employment problems facing the constituency of Houghton-le-Spring. I am deeply conscious of the manifold difficulties facing the Government in their attempt to find a reasonable solution. Yet I feel sure that they have listened to me with a sympathetic and understanding ear and I look forward optimistically to success attending any efforts they may be able to make on behalf of my constituents.

§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling)

I am sure that those hon. Members who are present will join with me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) on his maiden speech. I did not know that I was to have the pleasure of listening to a maiden speech. It was in the best traditions of the House. It is a tradition that hon. Members should refer to their constituencies in their maiden speeches and my hon. Friend has given us a very cogent survey of the employment problems in his constituency in a manner which was both eloquent and reasonable and which has made us look forward to hearing him again on many other occasions.

I am sure that I can also say, on behalf of the House, that we join with him in congratulating his predecessor, Lord Blyton, whom we all know so well and admire, on his elevation to another place.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the extremely difficult problem of reviving industry not only in his constituency, but in North-East Durham generally. He has referred to the responsibilities of the Minister of Power in this matter and I can assure him that the Board of Trade works closely with other Ministries on problems such as these, and with the new Ministry of Economic Affairs. This short debate will be examined by all the Ministries concerned and will be taken into account in the collective consideration which is being given to the problems of the development districts and this district in particular.

My hon. Friend has raised two issues. The first is the problem of steering industrial expansion to North-East Durham to find work for the present unem- 166 ployed and the second is to plan ahead for future developments in order to meet a falling off in the employment which may come along in the Durham coalfields. My hon. Friend has referred to discussions about the latter issue which are now going on between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers and which, of course, have been noted by the Ministry of Power.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the future in the area of his constituency does not look so serious as it may have done a little while ago. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has asked me to say that employment in the coal industry here has fallen very little in the last two years. I understand from him that there are no grounds for concern that the labour force employed by the Coal Board in this area will be substantially reduced. As I think my hon. Friend will agree, such reduction as has taken place recently has resulted in relatively little actual redundancy.

The present employment situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, which is our immediate concern, is not quite so bad as in other parts of the North-East, but it is grim enough and there is not much consolation, as he suggested, for a man or woman or youngster who is out of a job to know that in other areas there is a bigger percentage of unemployment; so I do not propose to argue about the numbers out of work.

What we have to do is to try to get going projects which will reduce the numbers at present unemployed. Such projects as there are at the moment will provide some jobs, but not enough to take up all the unemployment. My hon. Friend has referred to one of these projects—the advance factory which is to be built at Houghton-le-Spring and which my right hon. Friend announced a few weeks ago. The site for this was chosen not only because it is in an area of unemployment, but because it is one of the few sites available in this part of Durham.

My hon. Friend has mentioned the sites which are available. This is one of the difficulties that we had to face in this area because we can carry through the almost nation-wide dispersal of industry, which is the exercise on which we are 167 engaged to wipe out these pockets of unemployment, only if we have suitable industrial sites in the areas which have to be developed. This, I am advised, is the present situation in regard to the available sites in my hon. Friend's constituency.

When the advance factory is completed, there will be room on the Houghton-le-Spring Estate for another 100,000 sq. ft. of factory space. I have noted my hon. Friend's remark that, in the local authority's view, further land can be obtained adjacent to the site. We will certainly go into this. In addition, as my hon. Friend said, the Board of Trade has about 7½ acres available for development at Seaham and there are 14 acres on the Vane Tempest colliery site. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do our utmost to get these sites developed for factories, but before long we shall have to go beyond the boundaries of his constituency for further developments which we hope will be within reasonable travelling distance of some of the people in need of jobs in his constituency.

The finding of new sites for industrial development is primarily a matter for the local authorities. We work very closely with the local authorities on this problem. Now it is also a matter for the new regional planning boards working in association with the local authorities. I hope that suitable sites for further development of industry and, perhaps, for commercial development can be found throughout this area of North-East Durham.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the problems in his constituency cannot be considered in isolation. We must have planned development also in the neighbouring areas, and this planned development, as it goes ahead, will have an impact on Houghton-le-Spring and Seaham and other parts of my hon. Friend's constituency where there are people out of work. One development which may help quite a lot is the building of the new town of Washington, and there is a likelihood that as we press ahead with expanding some of the existing factories and developments going on in other parts of Durham there will be an overflow of industry from some of these earlier projects into my hon. Friend's 168 constituency—or at least there is a likelihood of providing jobs within easy travelling distance for my hon. Friend's constituents. But this does not mean that we shall not do our utmost to fill whatever sites are available for new factories in the constituency.

The big question which we have to face is how to get the factories there and to get the firms to occupy them. This is the other side of the problem with which we are concerned. It can be solved only by planning and promoting general and continuous industrial expansion and then to steer some of this expansion to the development districts. This calls for a very tough industrial development certificate policy in the overcrowded South-East and Midlands. I can promise that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will pursue a pretty ruthless policy in refusing industrial development certificates in the Midlands and the South-East.

This is not an easy operation. We have to face complaints from firms that we are refusing the possibility of development in the Midlands and South-East. But we shall continue with this resolute policy of stopping expansion in the South-East and the Midlands whenever we can sensibly do so and of inducing firms to expand in development districts, including North-East Durham. This means that the sites available for factories must be as attractive as possible. Here the Board of Trade has some responsibility, together with local authorities and other Ministries. As I say, I can promise my hon. Friend that we will do our utmost to make these new sites attractive so that we can get new firms and factories going.

We are working together in this matter. I assure my hon. Friend that the policies which we are pursuing are designed to meet the problems which he has very clearly described, and we shall push ahead with them with a sense of urgency.