HC Deb 10 May 1967 vol 746 cc1658-68

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

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson (Accrington)

After the drama, tension and excitement, not to say discomfort, of the past few minutes, it would be an understatement if I were to say that this Adjournment Motion was something of an anti-climax. It is, however, a welcome relief to get back to the mundane problems of Lancashire, and North-East Lancashire in particular, after a three-day debate of, we are told, such historic importance.

The subject which I now bring before the House has, however, particular relevance and flows naturally from some of the great events which we have been discussing over the past three days, because much of the debate on the Common Market centred on what Government policy towards the regions would be in the event of entry. I for one am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the present trend of concentrating industrial development and economic growth in the regions, which previously had been neglected, will not, and need not, be overturned as a result of going into the Common Market.

The problems of East Lancashire are not unknown in this House. I do not want to make a speech full of statistics; the emotional appeals that had been associated with the particular economic problems that have hit Lancashire over the past few years are equally well known.

What are those problems? Any debates on Lancashire's problems must be seen against the background of the decline of its two basic industries, coal and, even more important, textiles. We have had a full debate on textiles, and I do not want to take the time of the House tonight by going into the details.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)

Cotton textiles.

Mr. Davidson

Cotton textiles; I am obliged to the hon. Member. But we cannot allow a basic industry to decline so rapidly and in such a concentrated fashion without bringing in new industries to replace it, and that, in a nutshell, is the immediate need for Lancashire.

I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is here. He represents the neighbouring constituency of Rossendale. It is not for me to speak on his behalf and he could certainly speak on this subject more eloquently than I. I am sure that if he had the freedom I have to express opinions, he would be expressing them as forcibly in this House as he does, I know, at the meetings concerning textiles and Lancashire which he attends regularly.

I am not surprised to see my right hon. Friend here for this debate because he was also here throughout the debate on textiles which took place at an unearthly hour of the morning. Ministers are easy to hit. They are easy targets. They are popularly conceived to be powerful figures but they are by convention frequently unable to hit back. I am happy to pay my tribute now to my right hon. Friend.

One of the other problems facing Lancashire is the lure of the surrounding development areas. I pay tribute to what the Government have done to try to bring employment into areas which have suffered over the years from consistently heavy unemployment, but development areas as at present designated should not benefit at the expense of areas such as North-East Lancashire, which are not economically sound themselves, and that is what is happening at the moment.

The nearness of Skelmersdale, for instance, and the threat of a new town in the Chorley area is viewed with severe forebodings in North-East Lancashire. What we fear is that the increased development grants and the inducements which will follow from the setting up or the proposed setting up of another new town will increase the disparity even more between the development areas and the old industrial areas, with their problems of urban renewal, slum clearance, derelict and obsolete factories and ugliness.

The increased grants that will induce the building of factories in the Chorley area will mitigate even more strongly against North-East Lancashire in the pre- sent unbalanced situation and I should like my hon. Friend to give an assurance that he is well aware of the feeling in North-East Lancashire about the possibility of such a new town being built. Recently, we read that Courtaulds intend to build a new weaving factory, but we were horrified to find that it is not to be built in Lancashire but in Carlisle. That sums up the difficulties with which the area is faced.

Obviously, with the great financial inducements that development areas can offer—and no one begrudges them the help they are given—Lancashire feels very much that it is being written off at the moment. We view also with concern the suggestion of new employment premiums for the development areas. These would further increase the disparity between the old industrial areas and the new, attractive towns being built. One of the great needs of North-East Lancashire is for help in urban renewal. At the moment Lancashire is not benefiting from the handsome grant which is given to the development areas.

The problem of urban renewal in Lancashire is a very large one. We feel that the Government should give special, considerate and sympathetic help to the councils which are doing such a splendid job, from their own resources, to clear the eyesores that have plagued Lancashire for so long.

We need action now in Lancashire. The excuse that the Government have put up in the past few months—I appreciate the sincerity and good intentions behind it—is that it is necessary to solve the problems of the development areas first. But some of these areas have been development areas for 20 years, and they might go on being development areas. If we allow time to drag on the problem will become so difficult that the very regions that we are trying to help, and to which I am drawing attention, will have problems as difficult as those of the development areas. Then it will be too late to help them.

What I am asking for is well known to the Government. The Lancashire and Merseyside Industrial Development Association and the North-East Lancashire Industrial Development Association have made very plain what they feel to be the only answer to Lancashire's problems. First, the whole of East Lancashire should be made a development area; secondly, it should have very generous Government help for slum clearance and urban renewal and, thirdly, there should be a campaign to attract new industry into Lancashire, to replace the declining textile and coal industries. There should also be less luring away of existing industry to the development areas surrounding the area.

I do not share the pessimism that prevails in Lancashire at the moment. I am sure that the Government mean well to Lancashire and will not let Lancashire down. I would like my hon. Friend to tell Lancashire plainly that he understands its problems and will do something about them, and that Lancashire has not been written off.

Dr. Winstanley

I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member has said, but he seems to give the impression—when he says that East Lancashire should be made into a development area—that it is necessary to bring in new industry to replace the dying cotton trade. I think that is not precisely the impression he intended to give. I should like to know whether he wants to see the cotton trade revitalised, so that it can be much bigger than it is now.

Mr. Davidson

I have made my views on cotton known in this House. I spoke at some length in the debate on the cotton trade. Of course I want to see the industry revitalised, but I am equally concerned that new and modern industry should be attracted to Lancashire.

11.49 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore)

I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) for raising this problem tonight. His concern is a genuine one. It is shared by a number of hon. Members who have constituencies in the North-East Lancashire area, and I feel that their concern is demonstrated by the fact that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr.Greenwood), is sitting next to me.

I can tell my hon. Friend straight away that it is important to separate as far as possible the short-term from the long-term problem of the area of which he has been speaking. The short-term problem can be traced to events in the economy since last July; the general effect on economic activity in the country of the measures taken then resulted in, to some extent, halting the flow of new work and new industry to North-East Lancashire as well as to other areas of the country. In addition, there is the particular problem of the textile industry, which has been caused by the tightening credit situation and by a certain amount of de-stocking. However, these are temporary factors. Nobody would dare to venture a strong opinion about the fortunes of the textile industry, because it is difficult to predict with accuracy about it. My view is that the coming year should see some evidence of recovery. Imports have been checked considerably in the past year and in the earlier months of this year and we expect to see an end to de-stocking. We also hope to see some increase in consumer demand, which will be of general benefit.

Sir Frank Pearson (Clitheroe)

Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that this problem is not due solely to the rundown of the textile industry? It is a process which has been happening for a number of years, with young people being lost to the area, in which the average age of the working population is far too high. The trouble has been caused by a flow of working capacity away from the area.

Mr. Shore

I began by distinguishing between the short-term and long-term problems so that I could come on, in the few minutes remaining to me, to the long-term basic problems of North-East Lancashire. It is important to consider these problems and not to over-concentrate on the short-term problems of the past year.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington is aware, the basic problems about which we are talking have been with the North-East Lancashire area for a long time. Depopulation is an old problem. More than 600,000 people lived in the area in 1911. Today only about 475,000 live there. We are, therefore, not discussing a new problem, but one that has existed for many decades. It is inevitable that, with depopulation on this scale, the age structure of the area will be unbalanced, with a high proportion of people over 45.

Why has this movement of population taken place? Only by considering that question will a solution be found I suggest that this big "why" can be answered in this way. First, there is the long-term decline of the cotton textile industry. I need say no more about that. It has gone on throughout our lifetime and has greatly affected the North-East Lancashire area. Secondly, the area has a certain remoteness. Communications have not been good in the past and its roads system leaves much to be desired. This is an obstacle to industrialists when considering the area as a possible location for new plants. Thirdly, housing in the area is poor. A lack of modern development and building has resulted in many towns in the area not looking particularly attractive. Over 37 per cent. of the houses were shown by the 1961 census to lack bathrooms.

In addition, there is the general problem of the industrial inheritance of the nineteenth century and, above all, the smoke and smog that hangs over a great deal of the area. That is the background of the decline, and my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the need for a double policy of bringing in new industry and, most important, generally improving the area's amenities and infrastructure.

I want to say just a word about Ley-land and Chorley. This should not necessarily be regarded as a threat. In a sense, it could be something that complemented and added to the prospect of the other towns in the area. A preliminary study has been made, and I believe that the consultants have now submitted their report to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who will be considering it. Further, when the report is published it will be considered by the Regional Economic Planning Council and the local authorities in the area. I can assure my hon. Friend that the worries he has expressed will be examined objectively by the council and the other bodies in the area. I hope that he will not take an over-pessimistic view of the possible effects of development before the whole thing has been assessed.

I turn now to the two other main problems that concern my hon. Friend. The first is the policy towards new industry in the area. I can well understand his feeling that the problem would be solved if these areas were put on a par with development areas generally. In fact, under our Industrial Development Act we have given much wider terms of reference to guide the President of the Board of Trade in determining what would be a development area.

It would be very difficult to argue the case, particularly at present, that North-East Lancashire comes within the scope of the Act. We are dealing here with levels of unemployment which, although they have been high, regrettably, during the winter, if taken over a period of years, have been extremely low. I have looked at the period from, say, March 1964 right through to September of last year, and I do not think that during the whole of that period unemployment has averaged over I per cent. It is not a long-term unemployment problem, but one of a rather different kind.

There are two possible ways of dealing with the problem. One is to try to find, as it were, a new method of helping areas of this kind which do not qualify for development area status—what some people have referred to as "grey" areas. I cannot say tonight what our thinking is on the subject, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be giving the subject very careful and close study. There are problems. First, we do not want to dilute the aid given to the development areas—they have great problems which we must help them to solve. Secondly, we have the problem of establishing, as it were, criteria to define what a grey area is. Thirdly, we have to decide which of the available policy instruments would be most appropriate to use.

In the meantime, I can assure my hon. Friend that the I.D.C. policy in the North-East Lancashire area is now being, and will continue to be, exercised most liberally in favour of firms in that area. Further, there is the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that he will assist the development of new industries wherever there are major releases of labour to be faced from the cotton textile industry. It is not just a matter of a liberal I.D.C. policy for firms that are already there, but where my right hon. Friend sees a danger of any substantial release of labour from the cotton textile industry he will apply a liberal policy.

I turn now to the problem of environment and communications. This is extremely important. Some developments are taking place which will be beneficial to the North-East Lancashire area.

I refer to the road developments, such as the link with the M6 which will come about with the improvement of A59 which will also go east into Yorkshire. In addition, there is the improvement of the A56 which links the area direct with Manchester. Thirdly, there is the link with the M61 which goes south of Burnley. These are very important developments which will be of great benefit to the area. They must be pressed ahead with as quickly as the road programme will allow.

I agree that housing and urban renewal are extremely important and on these local authorities have been extremely active. I do not wish to select unduly, but Burnley has been very enterprising and under the town development scheme it has agreed to build 5,000 houses over the next 10 years. This is contrary to the trend of depopulation in the area and will be welcomed by all in North-East Lancashire.

In addition, there is the general improvement of environment which will come about by extending smoke control orders. Local authorities vary a great deal in the vigour with which they carry out this legislation, but Burnley has declared about 50 per cent. of its area under the scheme. It has been estimated that we can get 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. more sunshine in North-East Lancashire by vigorously dealing with the problem of smoke pollution.

My hon. Friend may perhaps find reassurance in the fact that we now have the advantage of areas of this kind being within the scope of survey by regional economic planning councils. It was only in 1965 that we had the first report on the north-west area. For the first time we had a report which not only looked at the whole area but which began to analyse the sub-regions in a systematic way and to consider their problems. The council is now pursuing a variety of studies which are relevant to the future of North-East Lancashire.

This has been a valuable debate. I assure my hon. Friend that there is a built-in awareness by the Government of the problems of North-East Lancashire. Its problems are familiar to many Ministers and they are being looked at by the Regional Economic Planning Council. When proposals begin to come forward from the Council, my Department will give them most serious consideration and we will do all in our power to help the sub-region.

12.5 a.m.

Sir Frank Pearson (Clitheroe)

The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the most important sector of this problem. the total imbalance which will be caused if development areas are given subsidised wages. This is the biggest threat to East Lancashire and the Minister has totally failed to deal with this issue. He has totally under-rated the fear of East Lancashire that it will not get a fair crack of the whip and the fear that the development areas will take the cream of industrial development. It is a pity that the Minister did not take this opportunity to tell East Lancashire in much clearer terms what the Government's intention is with regard to these areas.

With the running down of the coal mines and of the textile industry, the people there are in grave doubt as to what their future will be. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) will be disappointed with the Minister's reply. We in East Lancashire looked forward to the debate with hope. We believed that we might get some indication from the Government of what the future of East Lancashire would be. We have had no answer. We have had some woolly words about smoke clearance. Smoke clearance is not much good to people who are out of work. It is not much good to an area whose young people are leaving. It is no good to an area whose two great traditional industries of mining and textiles are in decline. The Minister says that smoke clearance is the answer. Smoke clearance will not be enough for East Lancashire.

As a result of the debate, my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Accrington, and the people of Burnley, Nelson and Colne, and Blackburn, will be extremely disappointed—

The Question having been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock on Wednes day evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.