HC Deb 26 June 1968 vol 767 cc771-82

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

8.52 a.m.

Mr. David Marquand (Ashfield)

Even at this disgraceful hour, I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Floor of the House because the issues involved are of the greatest possible importance to my constituents, and indeed to the whole of the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

I emphasise at the outset that I do not intend to say anything about the specific position of Kirkby Colliery itself. The N.C.B. decision to close this pit, which employs 2,000 men and on which about £4 million has been invested in the last six years, has aroused deep anxiety throughout the Nottinghamshire coalfield. There is a widespread demand for a public inquiry, not only from the Kirkby Branch of the N.U.M., but from the area executive.

A number of my hon. Friends from the area and I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power asking him to receive a deputation on this point. I do not think it would be right for me to say anything more about it until we have received his reply.

This morning I want to concentrate not on the closure of Kirkby Colliery itself, but on the implications of its closure for the economic development of the area. In particular, I want to draw the Government's attention to two points. The first is the urgent need—even more urgent now than it was before—to attract new labour intensive industry to this part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield. The second is the need to re-examine the working of the Redundancy Payments Act so far as it affects mine-workers.

Dealing with the second point first, since it is more limited and specific, the position is as follows. Many of the younger miners at Kirkby are likely to be offered alternative employment at other collieries in other parts of the coalfield. Some of them, no doubt, will be quite happy to take them. Others, however, will not. There is a widespread feeling among the miners in my constitu- ency that they work in a dying industry. Many of them do not want to take jobs at other collieries far from their homes which may involve long journeys of up to an hour each way. Many of them feel that if they do accept alternative employment at other collieries they will still have no guarantee of secure employment in future, since even a profitable pit may become unprofitable in five or 10 years time. What many of the younger miners want is a chance to leave the industry now while they are still young enough to acquire new skills.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State may say that they can do this now. A miner who is made redundant by a colliery closure is not obliged to accept alternative employment at another colliery. The fact remains that if a miner is offered alternative employment at a colliery which is considered to be within reasonable travelling distance and he turns the offer down, he may lose his entitlement to redundancy pay. I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that this state of affairs has aroused intense bitterness and anger throughout the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

I appeal to the Government at least to examine the possibility of changing the redundancy payment system to meet the miners' feelings on this matter. I realise the difficulties and that the Redundancy Payments Act has been a great boon to workers, and I do not belittle it. Nevertheless, I urge the Government, in view of the fact that the mining industry is in a unique position as the most rapidly contracting industry, to look at the situation sympathetically. I hope to have an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will be able to do this.

I turn now to the question of alternative industry. This is overwhelmingly the most important issue. Just how important it is can be seen by looking at the employment statistics in the Sutton-in-Ashfield employment exchange area, where Kirkby Colliery is situated. In the Sutton-in-Ashfield employment exchange area, nearly 55 per cent. of the male insured population were, at the time of the last count, employed in mining. According to figures which I obtained from the Ministry of Labour a few months ago, almost one-fifth of the male insured population were employed at four pits which were known to be in difficulties. One of the four was Kirkby, which is now about to close. These figures give an impression of the stark-ness of the problem which exists in the area. They are reinforced by the powerful supplementary evidence recently submitted by the Nottinghamshire County Council to the Hunt Committee on "grey" areas, from which I would like to quote.

The Nottinghamshire County Council wrote as follows: During 1967, Nottinghamshire's total of 37 collieries was reduced to 34. … The first three months of 1968 have seen further contraction and rationalisation at Morgreen resulting in a reduction of the colliery's manpower by 600 men, and by June Brookhill colliery, on the Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire border, will be closed and the miners transferred to Kirkby Bentinck. In April the National Coal Board announced that Clifton and Kirkby collieries would close in July and August of this year. … The consequences of the closure "— of Kirkby— could be an economic catastrophe for the town of Kirkby-in-Ashfield, which is heavily dependent on mining as a source of employment with 43 per cent. of its male working population directly involved in the coal industry. At the same time, it will seriously affect the adjoining town of Sutton-in-Ashfield, where a large proportion of Kirkby colliery's miners live. Moreover, the unemployment problems in the Kirkby and Sutton area will be exacerbated by the decision to close Swan-wick colliery, in Derbyshire. … In addition to those collieries where closures have already been announced, several others have been placed in jeopardy by the National Coal Board and it seems unlikely that they will remain open for very much longer. … Several other Nottinghamshire pits to the south and west of Mansfield are known to be in difficulties … and a total of nine pits could well be closed in this vicinity during the next few years. It will be seen, therefore, that in the few months since the submission of evidence the coalfield position has deteriorated considerably and it now seems that the critical period previously expected to fall within 1970–75 will now occur in the immediate period to 1971. The County Council goes on to point out that jobs in the profitable long-life pits in the eastern part of the coalfield are rapidly becoming scarce and that in any case men who are transferred to those collieries will probably suffer a significant drop in earnings.

The County Council continues: In this situation it is most unlikely that the transfer of miners to other collieries will continue to take place on a substantial scale, particularly where house-moving is involved, and the majority will seek work outside the area and move away. The County Council's evidence to the Hunt Committee concludes that within the Kirkby/Sutton area some 3,000 miners will need re-employment outside the mining industry by 1971 without taking account of the need to provide new job opportunities for school leavers who would no longer be able to find jobs in mining.

As things are at the moment, alternative employment outside coalmining is simply not available on the necessary scale. If nothing is done, the 3,000 jobs which the county council calculates will be needed by 1971 will have to be found outside the area. If that happens, the population, and especially the younger population, will inevitably drift away, leading to a waste of social capital in the areas concerned and greater congestion in the areas to which it moves. The problem we face now in the western part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield is very urgent. It is not a problem for the late 1970s, as we once thought. It is not even a problem for the early 1970s. It is a problem for urgent action now.

I realise that the problem in the development areas is far more acute. I support the regional policies of the Government which are designed to give priority to development areas. I am sure that the vast majority of my constituents would say the same. Although we accept that the development areas should get priority, we believe very strongly that, unless the Government take some action to steer new industry to our part of the Nottinghamshire coalfields, the problems which exist in the development areas today will exist tomorrow in the Nottinghamshire coalfield as well. We believe that prevention is better than cure and we are asking the Government to take action now to prevent large-scale unemployment from coming into existence in this area, instead of waiting until it comes to cure it when the disease has started.

Mr. E. S. Bishop (Newark)

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and I fully support the comments which are being made, because we are concerned with the area. I underline the fact that the submission from the Nottinghamshire County Council which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) quotes was a supplementary report to the Hunt Committee, which shows that the previous report—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Interventions must be brief at this time of the day.

Mr. Bishop

With respect, Sir, I was going to draw attention to the fact that the evidence submitted to the Committee a few months ago is already out of date, which underlines the urgency of the point my hon. Friend is making about the need for more I.D.Cs and greater help for this area.

Mr. Marquand

That is exactly what I was coming on to say. That is absolutely true. The evidence from which I quoted was the supplementary evidence submitted a few days ago. The county council drew attention in the supplementary evidence to the fact that the position had become much more acute than it had been when it submitted its original evidence.

I draw attention to a number of proposals that the Nottinghamshire County Council has made in its supplementary evidence and its original evidence and which I endorse and strongly support. The first is with regard to the drawing of the boundaries of a possible grey area in this region. Apparently the East Midlands Planning Council has suggested that the boundaries of any future grey area in the East Midlands should be drawn by taking a 7-mile distance from the centre of Nottingham, Derby, Mansfield, Chesterfield and designating the area which lies outside that distance as a grey area. This assumes that Mansfield and Chesterfield can be equated with Nottingham and Derby in terms of their capacity to generate alternative employment for redundant miners. This is simply not true, because Mansfield and Chesterfield are themselves heavily dependent on mining. I therefore believe that it is essential that any future grey area should include Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield, as the county council suggests.

Even before the Hunt Committee reports, certain things can be done, as the county council suggests in its evidence. First, there is the question of industrial development certificates. In the past, the Board of Trade was understandably reluctant to grant I.D.Cs for the Nottinghamshire coalfield since it was assumed that the mining industry would continue to provide satisfactory employment for the foreseeable future. That is no longer true. I urge the Government to make clear that for Kirkby-in-Ashfield and Sutton-in-Ashfield there will no longer be any question of refusing industrial development certificates either for existing employers to expand or for new employers to come in.

It is not enough for the Government simply to operate their I.D.C. policy more flexibly. It is also necessary for them to to proclaim loudly and clearly that they intend to do so, because otherwise industry will not know that the policy has changed. One of the problems in Nottinghamshire has been that industrialists have not bothered to apply for I.D.Cs since they have taken it for granted that in Nottinghamshire they would not be granted.

Second, there is the question of dereliction and environmental improvement. The area desperately needs a face-lift if industry is to be attracted to it. The local authorities in the area are conscious of this need. The county council has said that it is prepared to put £150,000 a year of rate-borne expenditure into it. But the problem cannot be solved simply by the local authorities. As a minimum, the Government should say that local authorities in an area such as this should have at least the same treatment that local authorities have in development areas. They should have an 85 per cent. grant towards this work instead of the 50 per cent. which is all that is available now outside development areas.

Next, the question of training facilities. Obviously, the Government have rightly concentrated on the development areas in their location of Government training centres. Now, however, in Nottinghamshire we face the same problems as are faced in mining districts in the development areas. It is now time for the Government to provide more training facilities at Government training centres than the very limited facilities which are available now at Long Eaton.

I have put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State some of the points which the county council made in its evidence to the Hunt Committee. It makes several other recommendations which I should like to draw to his attention, and I hope that he will consider them all sympathetically. In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) for coming to the debate and intervening in support of my case, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) for his presence, too; though he is prevented by his position as a Whip from intervening, he strongly supports the cause. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for giving us a sympathetic hearing.

9.8 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) not only for his endurance in having lasted so long through this very long night but for raising the question of the closure of Kirkby Colliery, which is of deep concern to his constituents. Although he said that he would not dwell on the reasons for the closure, I think that it would be to the advantage of the House if I were to fill in some of the factors contributing to the closure decision.

The National Coal Board announced in February that Kirkby Colliery, in the South Nottinghamshire area, was in jeopardy, and on 22nd April that it would close at the end of August. The colliery, which, at the end of March, employed about 1,950 men, has recently been the subject of a £3.4 million reorganisation scheme, under which its workings have been linked to those at the nearby Langton Colliery and were also to be linked to those at the Brook-hill Colliery. It is now expected that Brookhill will be linked with another pit. Up to the end of March 1967, £2.7 million had been spent.

The scheme was designed to produce an annual output of about 2 million tons, but subsequently, unfortunately, geological difficulties were encountered which made it physically impossible to sustain an output of this order. In 1966–67 Kirkby made a loss of £850,000 after interest. This represented 13s. 11d. per ton. In 1967–68 it made a loss of £1,587,000, again after interest. Losses in Apr 1 and May this year on the same basis were £111,000 and £121,000 respectively.

My hon. Friend referred to the problems of the area generally. The two Nottinghamshire areas of the National Coal Board and the North Derbyshire area contain a large number of continuing pits, including 11 of the Board's 50 top priority collieries, thus providing scope for redeployment within the industry. When Kirkby eventually closes it is estimated that of the 1,950 men employed there, 1,000 or more will be given the opportunity to transfer to other pits, 350 will be retained for salvage work, 250 will be accounted for by normal wastage, and about 350 will be redundant and entitled to benefits under the Redundant Mine Workers Payments Scheme. Under these separate headings 627 men had already been accounted for by 22nd June.

I understand that despite importation of miners from other coal fields where the industry is undergoing much greater and faster decline, there are currently 2,000 vacancies for miners in pits within the region. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the reluctance of miners to accept jobs within the industry which involve them in substantial travelling time. The problem is not restricted to this area by any means. The men concerned must appreciate that, so far as one can see ahead, there is a future for a large number of men in the coal mines.

Locally, in the Employment Exchange Area of Sutton there are currently 109 unfilled vacancies for miners, and at nearby Mansfield there are 167. These exclude vacancies in the industry for men transferring from other pits.

Whilst my hon. Friend properly draws attention to the need for new and more labour-intensive industries, he will, I am sure, recognise that alternative employment prospects here are really brighter than those prevailing in respect of many other pit closures.

However, some men will, unfortunately, be declared redundant, and this sharply raises the fact that massive industrial reorganisation on the scale affecting the mining industry requires the provision of facilities for retraining, in order to equip men for participation in employment in other industries. I am glad that my hon. Friend drew attention to this, and to the facilities already existing. These comprise Government training centres at Long Eaton where there are 277 places, Leicester with 219 places, and Sheffield, just outside the region, with 187 places. Proposed new centres at North Staffordshire and Wolverhampton are due for completion in 1970. The North Staffordshire centre is expected to reduce the present pressure of demand on Long Eaton. Portland College for the Disabled and Remploy factories at Alfreton and Mansfield make provision for training disabled persons. But redundant miners are unlikely to be so seriously disabled as to qualify for those places.

On 10th June, 1968 there were eight redundant mine workers in training in the Midlands Region, and from September, 1967 to June, 1968 five redundant mine workers have completed training courses. I am sure that this information will be of real interest to my hon. Friend.

However, I assure him that it is not my intention to minimise the importance of the manifold problems arising from the closure of a pit around which the economic and social life of a community is so often closely woven. Indeed, representing a constituency within the Northern Region which has suffered from pit closures—a region which is continuously carrying an enormous burdensome weight of unemployment and migration, largely attributable to the contraction of the mining industry—I can readily understand my hon. Friend's concern, and the fears of his constituents, about the impact of this closure upon the area which he so capably represents; and in this context I agree that he rightly identifies the major problem as one of planning.

On the long-term planning aspect, I feel sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that diversification of industry, which is so desirable in areas like this and to which he has given attention, is not a new situation. It has been developing for quite a long time and it is unfortunate that the area has been overtaken by the precipitation of the closure of this pit as a result of the acceleration of the Coal Board's programme. However, I assure him that his point has been fully taken and understood.

The East Midlands Economic Planning Council has recognised that the long-term effect of pit closures is to remove the traditional outlet for male employment and reveals the outstanding need to plan for new industries on an appreciable scale, on well chosen sites, with the accent on male jobs. In the East Midland Study, the Planning Council defined an industrial zone which needed special examination with a view to its possible development as one unit to absorb population and industry. As my hon. Friend knows, Kirkby-in-Ashfield is very near the heart of this zone. I would remind him that at the time the study was produced the Economic Planning Council visualised the possibility of difficulties arising, many of which he has referred to, and it said, in relation to this industrial zone:— Much research in detail will be required before an overall plan can be prepared. While this plan must be concerned with the position at the end of the century, the problems will emerge progressively in the interval and the basic decisions must be taken early. It is recommended that a special study of this zone should be undertaken straight away ". I think that it is within my hon. Friend's knowledge that a planning unit has recently been set up jointly by the four local planning authorities of Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and they have given a free hand to the unit to develop any necessary contact with the Planning Council and the Planning Board. The unit leader is hoping for close co-operation as the study progresses and is meeting a group of Planning Board officers on 17th July, 1968. This indicates the co-operation between regional and local planning authorities on economic and physical planning aspects aiming at a solution to the problems of the area. The unit is studying the whole area, and decisions on particular growth points must inevitably await the results of this study.

There is also the work of the Hunt Committee, set up to study areas outside the development areas whose economic growth gives cause for concern. The report of this Committee is expected later this year, and naturally and understandably the Committee has received a considerable amount of evidence from all parts of the country where economic growth is not proceeding as fast as people think it should. Kirkby is one of the areas which have submitted a certain amount of evidence relating to their own problems and to those of the Erewash Valley district as a whole.

The Hunt Committee, as recently as 20th June, visited the area and had discussions with the Economic Planning Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and the Sutton and Kirkby local authorities; and I understand that on that occasion my hon. Friend himself was able to supplement the views expressed by the local authorities on a personal basis. The delegation was also able briefly to tour the area, including Kirkby. The Hunt Committee's findings, when available, may well have a considerable influence on the Government's long-term thinking on the economic future of areas such as this and the policies which should be applied, though it would be wholly wrong to presuppose that the Hunt Committee can produce an effective solution of the many problems of individual local authority areas, or that their planning procedures and activities should be halted or suspended pending the presentation of that report.

As for the immediate issues, the Kirkby area was not included in the area which the East Midlands Economic Planning Council originally recommended to the Hunt Committee in November last year for consideration as an intermediate area, but the Council's submission made the point that the area should be extended as further pit closures occurred. The Council has subsequently drawn attention to the worsening situation. Nottinghamshire County Council included Kirkby in its first grey area and has subsequently pressed for the inclusion of Sutton, too.

My hon. Friend will recall that a colliery closures liaison committee has been established. It includes N.U.M. representation and facilities are provided for M.P.s to attend meetings to discuss any matters such as the Kirkby closure. The Chairman of the Economic Planning Council is to discuss the whole situation with its members on 12th July.

I have attempted to indicate that the immediate redundancy problem is likely to be limited and that the long-term effects will have to be considered in relation to the whole area of which Kirkby is part. The House can be assured that all the planning bodies are working on the problem involved and that Ministers are being kept fully informed. My hon. Friend spoke of I.D.C. policy and will recall that a firm control of the issue of I.D.C.s is, among other measures, an integral part of regional policy designed to reduce the existing imbalance between the more prosperous regions and the development areas.

However, the Board of Trade's attitude to the area has been sympathetic and a reasonable number—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Nine o'clock a.m.