HC Deb 08 March 1967 vol 742 cc1480-91

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

12.30 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I want, first, to seek an assurance that the policy for the development areas will not be eroded so far as it affects nationalised industries. It is important to say this, having regard to the decision of British Railways to transfer certain staff from Newcastle-on-Tyne, in the development area, to York, which is not in a development area. My other point concerns the protection of the interests of the individuals concerned, which raises all sorts of problems.

When I asked the Prime Minister a Question about what policy he suppoover nationalised industries, I was given a reasonably satisfactory Answer. Therefore, for the moment, I am on the Prime Minister's side and I hope that this is a promise which he intends to honour. In this Answer, on February 23rd—my birthday, which is very important—he said: The Government look to the nationalised industries as well as to private industry to take account of distribution of industry policy so far as it is applicable to the special circumstances of each case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 337.] That was a reasonable assurance, which I accept.

However, I never accept pledges from just one Minister, but always like to have it double-checked. I often used to do that with my own Government and I see even more reason for doing so with the present Government. So, on another occasion, I asked the Minister of Transport whether she would give a direction to British Railways to follow a policy for protecting the interests of development policy. Her Parliamentary Secretary replied, in a very off-hand way: No. It is for the Railways Board to decide as a matter of management where their staff should be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 291.] I take that as eroding the policy for the protection of the development areas.

I can see that Newcastle will be squeezed out in this matter. I am delighted that certain other hon. Members from Tyneside, of an opposing party, support me in my view. This commands approbation for the policy of the development area. I am glad that this is not a matter for party politics. As hon. Gentlemen have put down a Motion on this subject, I am sorry that I have only the Adjournment and that we could not have a full debate on the matter.

My next step was to contact the Chairman of the Railways Board, Sir Stanley Raymond. I am devoted to the railways and to the large number of officials who serve its interests so well, but none of these very high-ranking gentlemen seems to know much about Parliamentary procedure or about politicians. I had a very charming letter from Sir Stanley, in which he said that he had referred the matter—which is, after all, a matter of Government policy: protection of the development areas—to the general manager of the amalgamation of the Eastern section and the London-North-Eastern Railway.

That was a very unwise decision. Surely a matter of policy is between the Government and the chairmen of the nationalised industries. It is not fair to put on a general manager the responsibility to say whether Government policy is right or wrong. However, I have no doubt that the Chairman of the Railways Board is a very helpful and charming man, especially in view of a letter which I received from him this morning, in which he wrote that this matter of the transfer of staff is one for the trade unions.

Sir Stanley did not say that anyone else in the North-East had any interest in this matter, except the trade unions. In that, of course, he is quite wrong, because I represent a constituency in the north of England and a great number both of trade unionists and of employers and I have just as much interest in what goes on in relation to human problems as anyone else.

However, the Chairman's charming note said that this was a matter for the trade unions and I am absolutely thrilled by that—he did not know that he was thrilling me: how should he?—because it is the trade unions which are objecting. Therefore, if they are objecting to the transfer and it is a matter for the unions, the battle must already have been won. I hope that all those concerned will take note of this point.

I should like to illustrate the problem. In 1960, to support the development policy which stemmed from the Conservative Government, with as much industry as possible sent to the development areas, it was decided to transfer the coal section from Peterborough to Newcastle, and this was done. Under the new arrangement, the coal section will be transferred from Newcastle back to Peterborough. Peterborough, of course, is not in a development area and the policy which was helpful to a development area is now being reversed by the present Government. this, of course, is not surprising, when one thinks of the views apparently held by the present Minister of Transport.

In addition, two sections of the railways staff, which is now centred on London and Leeds, are being transferred to Doncaster. In other words, Newcastle is being squeezed out. That is what I and, I hope, other hon. Gentlemen take great exception to. It is simply monstrous that Newcastle should be regarded as a second-class part of the country north and south of York. What is much worse, there has never been any real explanation except in the merger.

The public relations department of the British Railways Board cannot be very good, because it does not seem to realise that, apart from the people concerned in the transfer, there is tremendous interest in all this outside. The public relations department has taken no trouble to inform the other part of Newcastle and the area concerned—the whole of Tyneside—that this decision to squeeze out Newcastle and upgrade York, Doncaster and Peterborough has been taken.

On the whole, the British public is fairly reasonable. It is extraordinary that no real reason for the transfer of staff has been given. If the coal section at Peterborough can be incorporated successfully at Newcastle, I cannot see any reason why the finance department, which is covered by the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, could not continue to operate in Newcastle.

That is one of the questions I want answered. Do this Government stand by the policy of protection of development areas, as seems to be implicit from the Prime Minister's Answer to me, or are they setting out to squeeze Newcastle out and concentrate on York, Peterborough and Doncaster and probably many other places which are not in development areas?

I turn to the human problem. This also raises a very important question. I am very proud that the trade unions came to see me to make representations. I have not the slightest doubt that, quite rightly, they have made representations to all Members of Parliament from the north of England, as they said they would. It is right that trade unionists should be received by both the Conservative Party and by the Socialist Party. I am glad that both sides have been consulted.

It is important that it should be realised that it was the trade unions concerned which raised this matter with me. I was delighted to receive their representations. I am to receive another deputation from them on Saturday morning. We in the Conservative Party do not believe in closed shops. I am very glad that trade unions in the North of England, when they are in difficulty, realise that the Conservative Party is not a closed-shop party.

If the Railways Board gets its way, there will be a tremendous concentration of new people going to York. This involves a tremendous amount of housing. I do not know whether York is fully housed and has a whole lot of new houses available. It will not be hundreds of people. I gather that the figure can rise to thousands of people. This includes husbands, wives and families. There is also the question of school places.

I understand that the staff who are to be transferred from the Eastern Region to York have already had the opportunity of having a look round York. I do not know whether any houses were pointed out to them. I have no doubt that they also had a chance of seeing the schools. Once again, Newcastle has been left at the bottom of the list.

I want to know what the channel of communication is, because on the human side I do not think that it is for me or any other Member of Parliament to make representations on the protection of development area policy, except to Ministers. I know that no Minister has offered to receive a deputation on this point.

What is the channel of communication when trade unionists want to make representations outside the official trade union representation? If I understand it rightly, the official trade union people in the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association tried to swing the matter in favour of the Government. I am glad that there has been a revolt among "back bench members" of the trade union. I think that they have done well. I am proud of them.

I asked if I might bring a deputation to see the General Manager at York, Mr. Fiennis. He is a very charming and co-operative man. He sent me a very nice letter saying that it would not be appropriate for him to receive a deputation from any Member of Parliament, because the matter was to be debated in Parliament. Here it is being debated in Parliament. I wonder what will happen when the debate is over, unless we win the case. The Chairman of British Railways will not want to receive a deputation.

So what is the channel of communication when genuine trade unionists want to make representations in the ordinary way through Members of Parliament, which I believe they are entitled to do? Sending me a lot of pleasantly phrased letters will not put me on to the scene. I want to know today what Minister or railway official I can take these people to, or who I can take them to, because they have great anxiety, whether we win the battle or whether we do not. If we win the battle, well and good. If we lose it, they will still have their human problems. Who is the proper channel of communication to which I can take aggrieved trade unionists who want to make wider representations than their accredited officials are prepared to make?

Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary support the Prime Minister's policy for the protection of development areas, or does he support the policy of the Minister of Transport? On the human side, who is the legitimate person to whom the human problems of the identifiability of jobs and a whole lot of technical matters on which I am not competent to make representations can be taken? I want these representations to come from the mouths of the trade unionists. Who must I take the deputation to? I shall merely introduce the trade unionists through the ordinary Parliamentary procedure.

It is absurd that trade unionists in the railway industry have not the right of being referred, through Members of Parliament, to the railway chiefs. I shall fight this to the hitter end. I think that I have said enough. I want to know what is to be donc. I hope that we shall win our battle. Then I want to know how the humanities, which have been eroded by British Railways, ale to be protected.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I shall intervene only briefly. I shall leave my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the managerial aspects of this matter. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), in her tirade, has reflected on the place to which most of these men will be going, namely, York, which is my constituency. She has suggested that the real difficulty is that men are being transferred from a development area—

Dame Irene Ward

And women.

Mr. Lyon

—to a place which is outside a development area.

May I educate the hon. Lady by telling her that my constituency is outside a development area only by some absurd piece of administrative bungling by whichever Government it was who decided on the line of the area, because it is, in fact, just outside the boundary. The boundary is the whole of the northern regional economic planning area. My constituency falls just outside the line in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, which is not a development area. The consequence is that the northern suburbs, which are just outside the constituency, are in the development area, but the city itself is not.

The problems which the city faces are problems common to a development area. According to the latest Inland Revenue statistics, the average income in my constituency is £70 a year lower than that in Newcastle. That development in the city is urgently required is shown by almost every statistic that can be produced. The ld. rate in York produces about £15,000, and I venture to suggest that it produces a great deal more in Newcastle. It is true that the unemployment rate in York is probably lower than it is in Newcastle, though the figures for Newcastle are not available—only the figures for the whole Tyneside conurbation. The difficulty in York is that we require considerably more commercial development, and that will follow from the amalgamation of the Eastern and North-Eastern Regions of British Railways. It must give a great impetus to the development of York, which badly requires it.

When the hon. Lady is rightly protecting the interests of her constituents she should also reflect that other places have difficult problems to solve and that one of the effects of the amalgamation may be to solve some of them. As for her doubts about the accommodation of the men and women who will be moved to York, the city council is prepared for, and will welcome, any of the labour which will be moved under the amalgamation scheme. It can accommodate them in housing, education and all the other services which will be required. It is not quite true that all the people who will be moved from London have already been to see York.

Forty families have been to see York and have expressed their satisfaction at the area and the amenities which will be provided. I have no doubt that if the hon. Lady's constituents also wish to go, British Railways will make the same arrangements for them.

12.52 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) is a doughty fighter for Newcastle and deserves well.

The coal section should not have been moved from Peterborough and it is not wrong to bring it back. Could the Minister find a minute, at the end of his reply, to give an answer to a letter I sent him in connection with the traffic parking problem in Peterborough, which many traders say will turn the centre of Peterborough into a ghost town? Will he consider postponing the implementation of the regulations so that those protests can be examined?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris)

rose—

12.53 p.m.

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

May I ask my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

It is up to the Minister to decide whether to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dame Irene Ward

I want a reply.

Mr. Urwin

I just wanted to point out to the House that many of us on this side are equally concerned about the proposed transfer of the department to York. But I also appreciate the hon. Lady's apparently new-found desperation to protect the development area of the Northern Region, bearing in mind that it was her Government which set in train the Beeching Report. That cut back employment in the railway industry by several thousands and as a result of the redeployment in the mining industry several thousands of men have left the development area which she is trying to protect.

But I compliment the hon. Lady—

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is that not rather outside the points my hon. Friend was trying to raise, and would it not be better to get an answer to them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not wish to waste further time. There is little enough of it.

Mr. Urwin

I hope that my hon. Friend will pay due regard to those points when he replies.

12.54 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris)

In the short time available to me I shall try to deal with a number of points, which are fairly simple, which have been raised in the debate. The presence of a large number of my hon. Friends indicates that they are as concerned as the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). I have noted the Motion of my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), Blaydon (Mr. Woof), and South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and the Amendment to it in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).

The Government are concerned to ensure that there is adequate employment and development in the development areas. The presence of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is an indication of our awareness of our responsibilities in the matter.

I want to begin by emphasising that the Prime Minister has made our policy for encouraging movement to development areas absolutely clear. That does not mean that there must be no change in development areas or the employment there. We do not want to ossify economic activity in those areas. If there is an overwhelming case, as there is in this one, we must have regard to all the circumstances, and that is what is happening here.

The matter raised this morning is essentially one of managerial responsibility for the British Railways Board. The hon. Member for Tynemouth wishes the Minister to direct the Railways Board to maintain its staff in Newcastle. The Minister has been made aware of the feelings of railway administrative staff on Tyneside by the large volume of correspondence which she has received in recent weeks. The hon. Lady has already had a Question answered on this subject on 22nd February.

The Minister understands and sympathises fully with those affected by the reorganisation. It is never easy when a family has to pack its bags and move 80 miles or more to a new home, with the breaking of long-established social and family ties. I well understand the feelings of hon. Members on the matter. But decisions about the move are outside the Minister's jurisdiction. My right hon. Friend was required to make an Order under the 1962 Transport Act before the regional merger could be accomplished, and, naturally, before she did that she satisfied herself that it was the right thing to do. But the implementation of the merger and subsequent decisions about the movement of staff are entirely the responsibility of the railways management. The Minister has no powers to intervene.

As the hon. Member for Tynemouth has eloquently pointed out this morning, particular concern has been expressed on Tyneside at the prospect of office staffs being moved out of a development area into non-development areas. But it is not just a minor move of a small office; it is a massive shake-up of railway organisation on the whole of the east side of England. We are talking about a reorganisation which will result in a saving to the railways of about £1.6 million a year in administration costs. I feel confident that the hon. Lady would not wish to deny British Railways this, when such savings are urgently wanted, when we are all working fiat out to get the railways on to sounder foundations and when we must do all we can to ensure the best possible use of manpower.

The Government are fully aware of the need to have sound policies on the distribution of labour In this case, the Railways Board expects to be able to move over 1,000 railway staff out of London and to re-establish them in a new headquarters at York. That will release valuable sites in the capital and help ease the strains in the South East. This move- ment outwards is very much in line with the Government's policy of encouraging offices and office staffs to disperse from the overcrowded London area.

It is against this background that we must view the transfer of 100 office jobs from Newcastle to York and Peterborough. I am confident that the Railways Board will give the most sympathetic consideration to the human problems which arise in a reorganisation of this magnitude.

There have been discussions at national level with the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, the union mainly involved, but they did not cover such details of the merger as the proposed transfer of staff from Newcastle to York and Peterborough. It would have been inappropriate to do so at that time, because the unions' main concern was the principle of the merger. The discussions which the Minister herself held with the unions before coming to her decision were also directed towards deciding whether or not the merger should take place.

It was only after the Minister had made her Order that detailed talks about implementing the amalgamation could be started. Negotiations about the Newcastle move began on 17th February, when the Board gave full details of what was involved to staff representatives at sectional council and local departmental committee level. The Board's proposals are now being considered by the staff representatives, and local consultations will take place after Easter.

The Peterborough decision was straightforward. The Board already has a computer centre there and the new equipment it is buying will augment that already in operation. It is sensible and, indeed, essential that all the computer equipment should be under one roof.

The decision about York was not taken without a good deal of study. It is very well placed in relation to the important railway traffic centres in the east, and it has good rail links to almost all parts of the new region. Newcastle would not have been so suitable as a headquarters for the region.

The Minister considered all those matters and came to the right decision.

It being One o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.